Low IQ and genetic disorders?

[OripahsTrebor]

Should low IQ be classified as a genetic disorder. By low, I mean IQs that are < 110. These should be considered genetic diseases because they prevent people from being attorneys, chemists, or executives. Hopefully a good eugenics program (via embryo selection) will purge the human gene pool of the low IQ alleles.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/34/Two_Curve_Bell_with_Jobs.jpg/420px-

[David B]

Should an inability to dance be considered a genetic disorder?

An inability to draw?

A failure to be empathic to people who've drawn a genetic short straw?

A failure to be athletic?

A failure to be good looking?

David B (wonders what is so special about IQ)

[OripahsTrebor]

Should an inability to dance be considered a genetic disorder?

An inability to draw?

A failure to be empathic to people who've drawn a genetic short straw?

A failure to be athletic?

A failure to be good looking?

David B (wonders what is so special about IQ)

A low IQ prevents one from acquiring a job with dignity such as a lecturer at MIT. So it should be considered a genetic disease.

[OripahsTrebor]

David B, you post at Gene Expression so you think that low IQ is a genetic disorder.

[Karalora]

You're kidding, right? There are so many things wrong with the OP that I hardly know where to start. But I'll try:

1. IQ is not solely genetic. It's probably not even mostly genetic--environment is probably much more influential in determining IQ.

2. The average IQ, by definition, is 100--which is, I'm certain you'll realize, less than 110. The best you can say about any classification that defines the average as "disordered" is that it is badly in need of recalibration.

3. Low IQ does not, all by itself, "prevent" people from obtaining high-status jobs that require specialized knowledge. People can often overcome their inherent shortcomings through effort.

4. So what if not everyone can have a high-status job requiring specialized knowledge? Society needs its janitors and its customer-service representatives as much as it needs its doctors and its lawyers--maybe more. I very rarely need to see a doctor, and I have never needed the services of an attorney (so far), but I rely on CSR's and retail clerks nearly every day. I would miss the latter a lot sooner than I would miss the former.

And this isn't even going into the flawed equivocation of IQ with useful intelligence. IQ tests don't measure intelligence so much as they measure proficiency at taking IQ tests.

[Matt the Medic]

There are more jobs requiring only a minimal (-1 standard deviation or so) IQ than those requiring the +.66 standard deviation cutoff you wish to invoke.

Matt

[David B]

David B, you post at Gene Expression so you think that low IQ is a genetic disorder.

As a matter of fact, I've never even heard of Gene Expression.

David B (rather takes umbrage at people who post wild assertions as if they are fact)

[Matt the Medic]

In fact, if you plan on setting the cutoff at 110, this translates to a z-score of .66 (mean = 100, SD = 15). As intelligence is considered to be normally distributed this means that only 25% of all humans would qualify as non-diseased by your criterion, while 75% of the population have the disorder.

Matt

[OripahsTrebor]

In fact, if you plan on setting the cutoff at 110, this translates to a z-score of .66 (mean = 100, SD = 15). As intelligence is considered to be normally distributed this means that only 25% of all humans would qualify as non-diseased by your criterion, while 75% of the population have the disorder.

Matt

Not all humans, you have to remember that IQ tests are standardized on a European population. Using their standizardization, that IQ of the world is at about 90 according to Richard Lynn.

There are more jobs requiring only a minimal (-1 standard deviation or so) IQ than those requiring the +.66 standard deviation cutoff you wish to invoke.

Matt

I said jobs where people are treated with honor and dignity. I did not say "jobs" in the general sense.

[David B]

Not all humans, you have to remember that IQ tests are standardized on a European population. Using their standizardization, that IQ of the world is at about 90 according to Richard Lynn.


I said jobs where people are treated with honor and dignity. I did not say "jobs" in the general sense.

If something goes wrong with your plumbing system, and you don't treat the guy who comes round to fix it with honour and dignity, then perhaps you would be presented with a large bill, that you'd pay, and a plumbing system that will go even more seriously wrong, in a long enough time scale that the subsequent failure could not be attributed to the plumber you don't treat with honour and dignity.

It is a mistake to underestimate people.

David B

[premjan]

It is not a genetic disorder because it does not dramatically retard ability to survive in the wild (though it may gradually retard it). However, IQ is related to problem solving or success skills in a modern economy only, it would appear. I am not sure whether the modern economy is structured the way it is because of the dominant groups it contains or whether there is some inherent reason it has to be that way.

[barbos]

I took internet IQ test, according to the result and this plot I can be attorney :cool:

[doc_simon]

I'm concerned that killing off the group suggested by the OP would largely target black people (if I understood the plot correctly). Should I be concerned there is another agenda behind this OP?

[premjan]

The information elites in Africa were a restricted group, that may have been largely disbanded or killed off in colonial times. Which could have led to the current situation where both gene pool and culture are compromised.

[Plognark]

Bullshit. IQ is not the only measure of worth of a person.

[premjan]

I agree that IQ is not a valid measure of worth.

[Mike Elphick]

A low IQ prevents one from acquiring a job with dignity such as a lecturer at MIT. So it should be considered a genetic disease.Raising the level of IQ in the whole population will simply raise the standards required for entering 'dignified' professions and the distribution of jobs will stay the same. Besides, the eradication of what you consider 'genetic disease' might inadvertently remove artistic and musical talents from the population. IQ is a only measure of how well a person solves intelligent tests and how quickly.

[Karalora]

What does it mean to be treated with "honor and dignity" in a job anyway? If it means people look up to you and you don't have to get your hands dirty, the link to IQ is tenuous at best. Consider a zoologist picking through animal droppings in a remote jungle in order to determine what the beasties ate and what intestinal parasites plague them. Not what most people would consider "dignified," but definitely demanding of intelligence. By contrast, consider a loan officer at a bank. Very clean work, you wear a nice suit and get to tell people whether or not they can have money. But any schmoe can start as a teller and rise through the ranks to become a loan officer. You don't have to be smart to do it.

[hclincha]

A low IQ prevents one from acquiring a job with dignity such as a lecturer at MIT. So it should be considered a genetic disease.

All the other problems with your suggestion not considered, how do you determine what's a dignified job? Do you have an objective measure of what it is? Starting an eugenics programme based on your subjective whims on what dignity is seems unwise at best.

Then there's the fact which Matt stated - IQs are relative scores. Factor that in with the Flynn effect, and you've got yourself a pretty useless measure for how to carry out an eugenics programme. In other words, people who were deemed worthy of living a generation ago might fall under the required 110 score today.

[placebo messiah]

Should an inability to dance be considered a genetic disorder?





I have this

my parents can't dance either :(

We're campaigning for special parking spots

[Hawxhurst]

Should low IQ be classified as a genetic disorder. By low, I mean IQs that are < 110. These should be considered genetic diseases because they prevent people from being attorneys, chemists, or executives. Hopefully a good eugenics program (via embryo selection) will purge the human gene pool of the low IQ alleles.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/34/Two_Curve_Bell_with_Jobs.jpg/420px-

If we acknowledge differences, we might want to correct these inequalities. And in our fervor, we might deem these people as subhuman and inflict egregious acts of cruelity.

We cannot allow another Holocaust. I fear books such as The Bell Curve may inevitably result in a state where we justify enslaving people because we view them as subhuman.

I do not know if genocide is worth the price of human equality. If we genetically engineering everyone to be geniuses, it certainly a nice price to pay for human equality.

It seems you're doing a workmanlike job of presenting both sides of an issue that concerns you. I believe I'll just spectate. I learned a few things from your "How do these people sleep at night?" thread and look forward to more of the same here.

[doghouse]

A low IQ prevents one from acquiring a job with dignity such as a lecturer at MIT. So it should be considered a genetic disease.

Lack of athletic ability prevents one from acquiring a job with dignity such as starting pitcher for the New York Yankees.

[JamesBannon]

I do not know if genocide is worth the price of human equality. If we genetically engineering everyone to be geniuses, it certainly a nice price to pay for human equality.
Anyone who thinks that this would work is a complete idiot - and this comes from a staunch egalitarian. Genetics is a lottery even if we do use "selective breeding" or "genetic engineering" and there will always be those who "lose out" in the "game". This is why studies like the one in the OP are so completely useless. What useful information does it convey? The fact that "talent" is not evenly and equally distributed throughout some human population? Like we didn't know that one already. Any system that bases rights, rewards or priviledge on such information is unjust by definition.

[doc_simon]

What about the down sides to being super smart? Most the smart people I know are truly bonkers. I wonder if there is a correlation between various forms of mental issues and intelligence?

[Plognark]

What about the down sides to being super smart? Most the smart people I know are truly bonkers. I wonder if there is a correlation between various forms of mental issues and intelligence?

I think there is a correlation between genius IQ's and mental disorders, but I can't recall where I read the statistics on it. It only applies to people with really high IQ's though, well in the genius range.

Anyone know of any studies like this? I'm too lazy to sift through a mass google search.

[OripahsTrebor]

Anyone who thinks that this would work is a complete idiot - and this comes from a staunch egalitarian. Genetics is a lottery even if we do use "selective breeding" or "genetic engineering" and there will always be those who "lose out" in the "game". This is why studies like the one in the OP are so completely useless. What useful information does it convey? The fact that "talent" is not evenly and equally distributed throughout some human population? Like we didn't know that one already. Any system that bases rights, rewards or priviledge on such information is unjust by definition.

Hey James, why did you dig that up from the heredity, race, and IQ thread?

[JamesBannon]

Actually I copied it from Hawxhurst's post. I assumed it was in the thread. Apologies.

[Hawxhurst]

...and the reason I dug it up is that it appeared you were offering multiple perspectives on the matter.

I guess it's a compliment of sorts. Nobody remembers my threads over a month after I post.

[youngalexander]

IQ is a only measure of how well a person solves intelligent tests and how quickly.
Yet, then again
I think there is a correlation between genius IQ's and mental disorders, but I can't recall where I read the statistics on it. It only applies to people with really high IQ's though, well in the genius range.
Wow, those genius range mentally disordered guys must solve intelligence tests really fast, eh?

[Jesse]

Well, this article (http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/01-creativity.html) discusses the possibility of a link between high creativity and mental illness (both involve low levels of "latent inhibition), and also says that when they tested a group of Harvard students, Some students who scored unusually high in creative achievement were seven times more likely to have low scores for latent inhibition. These low scorers also had high IQs.

"Getting swamped by new information that you have difficulty handling may predispose you to a mental disorder," Carson says. "But if you have high intelligence and a good working memory, you are more likely to be able to combine bits of new information in creative ways."

[Hazy Daisy]

What about the down sides to being super smart? Most the smart people I know are truly bonkers. I wonder if there is a correlation between various forms of mental issues and intelligence?
Check out this article (http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/Outsiders.html) on the correlation between high intelligence and social maladjustment. (Nutshell: The higher the IQ, the greater the maladjustment, and the effect is stronger for women.)

(Edited to add: Yes, that is the excuse I'm using ;) )

[whichphilosophy]

Should low IQ be classified as a genetic disorder. By low, I mean IQs that are < 110. These should be considered genetic diseases because they prevent people from being attorneys, chemists, or executives. Hopefully a good eugenics program (via embryo selection) will purge the human gene pool of the low IQ alleles.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/34/Two_Curve_Bell_with_Jobs.jpg/420px-

Since not one gene or cluster of such has ever been established to be the cause of low IQ, classification of low IQ as a genetic disorder are socially devisive, scientifically flawed and logically bankrupt.

The Nazi diatribe that still infects our sciences and promoted in the back ground by ultra right wing groups such as the Pioneer fund that provides "grants" have always promoted this belief. n the light of day under scientific scrutiny despite cleverly crafted wording on some inconclusive research results has not produce a holy grail.

Therefore such a assertion is as rational as shaking gourds, rattles and beads, dancing and thumping drums

Members of MENSA and Intertel for instance are not all in top positions. Some are truck drivers, labourers, unemployed as well as being peers in science and medicine.

[whichphilosophy]

Check out this article (http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/Outsiders.html) on the correlation between high intelligence and social maladjustment. (Nutshell: The higher the IQ, the greater the maladjustment, and the effect is stronger for women.)

(Edited to add: Yes, that is the excuse I'm using ;) )

We are all taught to adjust to the herd. Man needs to adjust to his society say some or he she is a lunatic. So being different is regarded as maladjusted. And maladjustest to what? Ja but Ve hav vays ov making you adjust to zer herd meine dame

No excuse to be different is necessary.

Replace malajusted with unique.

[whichphilosophy]

Well, this article (http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/01-creativity.html) discusses the possibility of a link between high creativity and mental illness (both involve low levels of "latent inhibition), and also says that when they tested a group of Harvard students,

So is creativity lunacy and non creativity sanity?

[Hazy Daisy]

I agree. Considering it's "normal" to believe in magical sky fairies, I'll take abnormal, thankyouverymuch.

[Larsguy47]

I don't think it's really that big of a deal if some Europeans score higher IQ tests than some blacks. What is more critical is to break "white" up into smaller ethnic groups, i.e. German, Polish, Italian, English, and especially Jewish, then see what the chart looks like.

Further, I believe that excessive intellect isn't always an advantage. In the big picture, those who pursue higher intellectual issues tend to benefit the world population as a whole. Whites tend to be very mechanical, very inventive and they create things or adapt things that benefit the world in general, which could be considered to mean they are a service to the world.

In a way, the white cultures give the world it's infrastructure, but at some point it's hard to tell if the infrastructure is servicing the world or the world is servicing the infrastructure. If the infrastructure is actually serving the world, but those creating the infrastructure actually thinks the world is severving them, then its a simply matter of not letting them in on that little perception.

Problems only come in when advantages in one area or another are used to cause division and competition in certain groups, one against the other.

Everybody can't be the smartest person in the room. It doesn't work when everybody is a dermatologist. The world needs gardners and violinists too.

LG47

[doc_simon]

(Nutshell: The higher the IQ, the greater the maladjustment, and the effect is stronger for women.)

Well, this article (http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/01-creativity.html) discusses the possibility of a link between high creativity and mental illness

Right, so will the OP suggest that a good eugenics program (via embryo selection) will purge the human gene pool of the high IQ/creativity alleles.

And apparently the effect is stronger in females, so we'll need to stamp them out too. For the good of the gene pool, you know.

Isn't eugenics fun?!!?

[OripahsTrebor]

Right, so will the OP suggest that a good eugenics program (via embryo selection) will purge the human gene pool of the high IQ/creativity alleles.

And apparently the effect is stronger in females, so we'll need to stamp them out too. For the good of the gene pool, you know.

Isn't eugenics fun?!!?

Show me how low psychometric intelligence is advantageous.

You have to remember that the social maladjustment in high IQ subjects might be due to the fact that they have no intellectual peers.

[doc_simon]

Show me how low psychometric intelligence is advantageous.

You cannot define the value of a person by one trait.

But to show you one advantage: I've been rejected from job applications because I'm too educated for the post.


You have to remember that the social maladjustment in high IQ subjects might be due to the fact that they have no intellectual peers.

Nonsense. Most of my friends have (or are working on) doctorates. We spend a lot of time amongst lots of our 'peers'. We of course also spend a lot of time around a good sample of the population, interacting with 'normal' people.

I have to ask: would you still be here if your eugenics program were exercised? Are you a genetic defect free person?

[Orpheus]

Since not one gene or cluster of such has ever been established to be the cause of low IQ, classification of low IQ as a genetic disorder are socially devisive, scientifically flawed and logically bankrupt.

False. We know down syndrome and fragile-x syndrome are genetic diseases.

The Nazi diatribe that still infects our sciences and promoted in the back ground by ultra right wing groups such as the Pioneer fund that provides "grants" have always promoted this belief.

Argumentum ad Nazium

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html

n the light of day under scientific scrutiny despite cleverly crafted wording on some inconclusive research results has not produce a holy grail.

This really isn't surprising. The human genome itself was decoded a mere four years ago. We know very little about how the human brain functions period.

Therefore such a assertion is as rational as shaking gourds, rattles and beads, dancing and thumping drums

Argument from ignorance.

Members of MENSA and Intertel for instance are not all in top positions. Some are truck drivers, labourers, unemployed as well as being peers in science and medicine.

Straw man.

[Orpheus]

You cannot define the value of a person by one trait.

Why not?

But to show you one advantage: I've been rejected from job applications because I'm too educated for the post.

Spare us your anecdotes.

Nonsense. Most of my friends have (or are working on) doctorates. We spend a lot of time amongst lots of our 'peers'. We of course also spend a lot of time around a good sample of the population, interacting with 'normal' people.

See above.

I have to ask: would you still be here if your eugenics program were exercised? Are you a genetic defect free person?

No, I have poor vision and fused bones in my right foot; genetic conditions which I have suffered from my entire life. In your view, I suppose that is an argument against germline therapy.

[Orpheus]

I don't think it's really that big of a deal if some Europeans score higher IQ tests than some blacks.

I'm not aware of a single European population that performs anywhere close to the Sub-Saharan norm.

What is more critical is to break "white" up into smaller ethnic groups, i.e. German, Polish, Italian, English, and especially Jewish, then see what the chart looks like.

If you were to do so, you would find European IQ stretching along a continuum from a low in the Balkans around 88 to a high of around 105 in countries like the Netherlands.

Further, I believe that excessive intellect isn't always an advantage. In the big picture, those who pursue higher intellectual issues tend to benefit the world population as a whole. Whites tend to be very mechanical, very inventive and they create things or adapt things that benefit the world in general, which could be considered to mean they are a service to the world.

I'm unaware any contributions to humanity made by Australian Aboriginies, Kalahari Bushmen, Congolese Pygmies, or Sub-Saharan Africans. If you know of any, please let me know.

In a way, the white cultures give the world it's infrastructure, but at some point it's hard to tell if the infrastructure is servicing the world or the world is servicing the infrastructure.

Define culture.

If the infrastructure is actually serving the world, but those creating the infrastructure actually thinks the world is severving them, then its a simply matter of not letting them in on that little perception.

Do you reject Western science and technology?

Problems only come in when advantages in one area or another are used to cause division and competition in certain groups, one against the other.

Why exactly is that a problem? Primates are violent and competitive.

Everybody can't be the smartest person in the room. It doesn't work when everybody is a dermatologist. The world needs gardners and violinists too.

LG47

If everyone was a surgeon, dermatologist, neuroscientist or some other highly trained professional, would the world be a better place than it is today?

[Orpheus]

Check out this article (http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/Outsiders.html) on the correlation between high intelligence and social maladjustment. (Nutshell: The higher the IQ, the greater the maladjustment, and the effect is stronger for women.)

Typical. The common man is the measure of virtually everything in democracies.

[JamesBannon]

<edited on request of author>

[Orpheus]

Anyone who thinks that this would work is a complete idiot - and this comes from a staunch egalitarian.

As someone who supports eugenics, I agree, but for different reasons. Genetically engineering everyone to be a genius is neither possible, desirable, or practical. Billions of people would reject eugenic reproductive healthcare for religious reasons alone. Billions more would be unable to afford it.

Genetics is a lottery even if we do use "selective breeding" or "genetic engineering" and there will always be those who "lose out" in the "game".

You are stretching the truth here. Selective breeding has already been used on any number of plant and animal species for thousands of years, successfully, in complete ignorance of their underlying genetics. Germline engineering has been used on plants and animals since the 1970s to enhance different species for all sorts of traits.

This is why studies like the one in the OP are so completely useless. What useful information does it convey? The fact that "talent" is not evenly and equally distributed throughout some human population? Like we didn't know that one already.

I don't think that was the point. Many such talents have underlying genetic antecedents which are distributed unequally throughout the human population.

Any system that bases rights, rewards or priviledge on such information is unjust by definition.

How so?

[Orpheus]

Orpheus,
<edited for consistency>

An enormous difference. You are capable of performing any number of complex tasks which are simply impossible for individuals of that level of intelligence. It's exactly like asking what is the difference between an adult male and a seven year old child.

[premjan]

Anecdotally, I agree that whites (owing to either genetic or cultural traits) tend to have higher mechanical aptitude or inclination, and tendency to think linearly and logically. Whereas East Asians have a stronger tendency to think visually. Indians have some mix of the two tendencies. I have also noticed a tendency among whites to be a bit more bound up in verbal or logical categories in their thinking, which can be a trap as well as a benefit in terms of intelligence. I think more aboriginal populations including the Chinese, tend to think perceptually, which can be a benefit for lateral thinking though it tends to weaken linear thought processes. Blacks appear to me to be relatively happier, with fewer personality "hangups" than other races. East Asians have a certain groupiness to them. Indians tend to be sentimental and have a tendency towards superstition. Whereas whites have some tendency toward hierarchicalization and martial order, and possibly lower inherent tolerance including sharper personal boundaries (which could easily lead to fundamentalism). These are just anecdotal observations. In India we have people from various races - some whiter some more aboriginal, which may include some percentage of black and some with east asian contribution. Whites do strike me as having greater "engineering" intelligence whereas aboriginals / black have a little more creativity / flexibility and literary flair. East Asians have more rounded intelligence though they tend to be a bit weak verbally.

[doc_simon]

No, I have poor vision and fused bones in my right foot; genetic conditions which I have suffered from my entire life. In your view, I suppose that is an argument against germline therapy.

Do you make a contribution to society?

[Orpheus]

Do you make a contribution to society?

I have a M.A in international relations and a B.A. in history. I'm 26 years old. I have just begun my career.

[doc_simon]

I have a M.A in international relations and a B.A. in history. I'm 26 years old. I have just begun my career.

So, I'm guessing the answer is 'yes'. Which is nice - despite your genetic flaws and the fact you are unsuitable to do some sorts of work - you can still be a valuable member of society.

Do you/others think that you should have been aborted or something when these conditions were detected?

BTW, I hope that one day some clever medicine can sort out your physical problems. Perhaps the cure will come along next week?

[JamesBannon]

An enormous difference. You are capable of performing any number of complex tasks which are simply impossible for individuals of that level of intelligence. It's exactly like asking what is the difference between an adult male and a seven year old child.
Go live in the bush and we'll see just how "intelligent" you really are.

[premjan]

Bushmen are known to have very good (uncanny?) ability to track animals. Not sure whether it is impossible for other humans to develop that same intelligence but my guess is the highly verbalized intelligence needed in modern societies is not as useful for tracking animals or survival in the wild.

[Orpheus]

So, I'm guessing the answer is 'yes'. Which is nice - despite your genetic flaws and the fact you are unsuitable to do some sorts of work - you can still be a valuable member of society.

That's true. Then again, I probably would not have survived as long as I have if the technology that has ameliorated my condition did not exist. I would much prefer to be a better long distance runner with better vision. My poor eyesight is nothing but a handicap for me. Thus, I fail to see rationality in your Luddite rejection of technology.

Do you/others think that you should have been aborted or something when these conditions were detected?

You seem to be reducing eugenics to selective abortion. That's merely one procedure that has a eugenic effect. Germline engineering could conceivably repair all sorts of flaws in embryos. Do I wish that I would have been aborted by my parents? Of course not. In hindsight, no reasonable person does. That question is on the same level though as asking someone if they wish their parents did not have sex. How would you translate that into public policy? Would you force couples to have sex constantly for no potential embryo could be lost?

BTW, I hope that one day some clever medicine can sort out your physical problems. Perhaps the cure will come along next week?

If the reproductive healthcare were in the hands of people like you, we would never cure any of these deleterious genetic conditions. As for clever medicine, I suppose I am fortunate my grandfather was not killed by smallpox or cripped by polio. Are you against vaccinations?

[Orpheus]

Go live in the bush and we'll see just how "intelligent" you really are.

You are confusing knowledge with intelligence. They are not the same thing. The knowledge Bushmen possess of their environment is an acquired characteristic that is not biologically transmitted to future generations.

[premjan]

You don't know whether Bushmen's skills at tracking are due to intelligence or culture. Unless some test has been done on that.

[Orpheus]

Bushmen are known to have very good (uncanny?) ability to track animals. Not sure whether it is impossible for other humans to develop that same intelligence but my guess is the highly verbalized intelligence needed in modern societies is not as useful for tracking animals or survival in the wild.

Bushmen have far better eyesight, hearing, and sense of smell than those of us who live in the industrialized West. In a primitive environment, natural selection still works to eliminate deleterious mutations from the gene pool. The increasing frequency of deleterious mutations in our own gene pool (because of modern healthcare) is actually one of the strongest arguments for eugenics.

[Orpheus]

You don't know whether Bushmen's skills at tracking are due to intelligence or culture. Unless some test has been done on that.

Are you suggesting that Bushmen instinctively know how to track animals?

[Orpheus]

Go live in the bush and we'll see just how "intelligent" you really are.

I'm actually quite skilled as a hunter. Have you ever tracked a wild animal? Hunting is a popular sport in Alabama.

[JamesBannon]

You are confusing knowledge with intelligence. They are not the same thing. The knowledge Bushmen possess of their environment is an acquired characteristic that is not biologically transmitted to future generations.
And that makes what difference again?

[premjan]

Are you suggesting that Bushmen instinctively know how to track animals?Maybe they possess intelligence attributes that help them to track animals, much as you may possess intelligence attributes that help you to study History / International relations, or solve IQ puzzles.

[premjan]

Bushmen have far better eyesight, hearing, and sense of smell than those of us who live in the industrialized West. In a primitive environment, natural selection still works to eliminate deleterious mutations from the gene pool. The increasing frequency of deleterious mutations in our own gene pool (because of modern healthcare) is actually one of the strongest arguments for eugenics.I have no problem with elective eugenics. It is also possible that not only sense organs but also possibly terrain memory, and other useful traits are also a bit enhanced among Bushmen relative to populations not under selection for such traits.

[Febble]

Should low IQ be classified as a genetic disorder. By low, I mean IQs that are < 110. These should be considered genetic diseases because they prevent people from being attorneys, chemists, or executives. Hopefully a good eugenics program (via embryo selection) will purge the human gene pool of the low IQ alleles.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/34/Two_Curve_Bell_with_Jobs.jpg/420px-

No. Low IQ's don't "cause" anything. An IQ is a score on a test. Genetic variation is only one of many factors that account for variance in those scores.

If you want to raise mean IQ in a population, the first thing to do is improve perinatal care and early eduction.

And you also need to consider that IQ is not the same thing as intelligence. Intelligence is also a function of many factors in addition to genes, and the genetic contribution almost certainly includes interactions between genes.

[Orpheus]

And that makes what difference again?

It destroys your argument. You are confusing intelligence with education. They are not the same thing. Knowledge isn't heritable.

[Orpheus]

Maybe they possess intelligence attributes that help them to track animals, much as you may possess intelligence attributes that help you to study English, or solve IQ puzzles.

It is more likely that Bushmen simply have better senses and a culture that is based on hunter gathering. Tracking animals is not incredibly difficult.

[premjan]

Of course you have done some tracking but you certainly don't do it for a living, so I will suspend judgement on that one.

[Orpheus]

Of course you have done some tracking but you certainly don't do it for a living, so I will suspend judgement on that one.

Tracking animals is not a skill beyond the capabilities of a European child.

[premjan]

Or a bushman child most likely.

[Febble]

It destroys your argument. You are confusing intelligence with education. They are not the same thing. Knowledge isn't heritable.

And you are confused about intelligence and IQ. Both are a function of knowledge.

[Orpheus]

And you are confused about intelligence and IQ.

No, you simply misinterpreted my argument in the other thread.

Both are a function of knowledge.

Intelligence is a phenotype. I haven't seen any evidence that knowledge of, say, local wildlife is hereditary.

[JamesBannon]

It destroys your argument. You are confusing intelligence with education. They are not the same thing. Knowledge isn't heritable.
Excuse me? So what. It's transmissible and that's all that matters. Were it not you wouldn't be able to make the arguments you are now making. In any case I have seen no evidence that convinces me that "intelligence" is inheritable either. We don't even know how to measure it properly so how can we know it's inheritable?

[Febble]

No, you simply misinterpreted my argument in the other thread.

Possibly. I simply warn of the dangers of forgetting that IQ and intelligence are not the same thing.

Intelligence is a phenotype. I haven't seen any evidence that knowledge of, say, local wildlife is hereditary.

Intelligence is a construct. One measure of that construct is IQ tests. There are others. Knowledge affects scores on IQ tests. It almost certainly contributes to "intelligence" as well, although that would depend on how you define the construct. Knowledge of language, in particular, is a major determinant of IQ score and of intelligent functioning.

Intelligent behaviour however is a function of things that are, notoriously, not tapped reliably by most IQ tests. Curiosity, self-efficacy and creativity are three.

[Orpheus]

Possibly. I simply warn of the dangers of forgetting that IQ and intelligence are not the same thing.

No one is disputing that. IQ is a mathematical measure of intelligence. Intelligence is a phenotype, that is, a product gene-environment interaction (body weight is another example). Clear?

Intelligence is a construct.

We obviously part ways here. Intelligence is a phenomena of the brain measured by IQ tests.

One measure of that construct is IQ tests. There are others.

What are these other measures of intelligence?

Knowledge affects scores on IQ tests. It almost certainly contributes to "intelligence" as well, although that would depend on how you define the construct.

This depends on the type of test being administered. There are non-verbal IQ tests that measure intelligence by reaction time. The racial gap is largest on tests of this sort.

Knowledge of language, in particular, is a major determinant of IQ score and of intelligent functioning.

Language is similar to intelligence in that it is another example of gene-environment interaction. The capacity to learn language is innate. The content of language is largely a product of the environment.

Intelligent behaviour however is a function of things that are, notoriously, not tapped reliably by most IQ tests. Curiosity, self-efficacy and creativity are three.

Intelligence is simply the ability to process information and manipulate abstractions. "Curiosity, self-efficacy, and creativity" are not synonymous with intelligence.

[Orpheus]

Excuse me? So what. It's transmissible and that's all that matters.

You said above:

"Go live in the bush and we'll see just how "intelligent" you really are."

The skills that hunter gatherers use to "live in the bush," for example, the ability to track animals and knowledge of edible local plants, are acquired characteristics. These things are overwhelmingly a product of education, not intelligence. There is nothing intrinsic to "living in the bush" that is necessarily beyond the capabilities of any intelligent Westerner.

Were it not you wouldn't be able to make the arguments you are now making.

You are the one here making ignorant and uninformed comments.

In any case I have seen no evidence that convinces me that "intelligence" is inheritable either.

Inheritable? Did you mean to say heritable here?

We don't even know how to measure it properly so how can we know it's inheritable?

This is nonsense. Both sides of the intelligence debate, at least in the mainstream, agree that IQ is a valid and reliable measure of intelligence.

[premjan]

So is intelligence basically the same thing as cognitive effectiveness? Can you show me how cognitive effectiveness is measured in the books that you have read? Perhaps we could explore whether it is a complete measure of cognitive capability or not.

[JamesBannon]

Intelligence is simply the ability to process information and manipulate abstractions.
Define abstraction. What kind of abstractions are we talking about here? Mathematical? Linguistic? Scientific?

Define "information". What kind of information are we talking about? Do you mean the ability to form concepts? Do you simply mean data?

In any case I fail to see what IQ has to do with any of this.

P.S. It might be advisable Orpheus for you to learn who you are corresponding with before you treat them in such a patronising fashion. As for myself I make no claim to possess expertise of any kind in this field, but Lizzie is a qualified cognitive scientist (even though she is a theist :)). Might stop you from putting your foot in it.

[premjan]

Oops, didn't realize Febble is in the cognition field.

[JamesBannon]

Both sides of the intelligence debate, at least in the mainstream, agree that IQ is a valid and reliable measure of intelligence.
Really? News to me. Mind you I am a bit out of date. How come though my IQ score varies according to how much practice I've done, how much concentration I put in, what kind of mood I'm in at the time I'm tested and hundreds of other variables? My IQ score can vary by as much as 20 points depending on these factors. Is that heritable do you think?

In any case, none of this is in any way relevant to the central point of this and similar threads. I ask again (in a less belligerent tone this time). What conceivable difference does it make what my IQ score is? IQ is not a measure of worth, it is an arbitrary number. It means nothing.

[JamesBannon]

Oops, didn't realize Febble is in the cognition field.
It's in one the the threads in GRD.

[doc_simon]

My favourite proof that IQ scores are meaningless: this man had an IQ of 125 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman).

[premjan]

That guy won the Putnam math test (which not even John Nash managed), so at least on the mathematics scale he was far ahead of me (and I tried the Putnam a couple of years). The 125 IQ was I think part of his Nobel acceptance speech.

[JamesBannon]

My favourite proof that IQ scores are meaningless: this man had an IQ of 125 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman).
Yep, an authentic genius. On average I score well above that and there is no way I'm that talented, not even close.

[Febble]

No one is disputing that. IQ is a mathematical measure of intelligence. Intelligence is a phenotype, that is, a product gene-environment interaction (body weight is another example). Clear?

Its a measure. "Mathematical" is superfluous.

We obviously part ways here. Intelligence is a phenomena of the brain measured by IQ tests.

Intelligence is certainly a product of brain function. However what it is is a [I]construct. We can argue about the nature of that construct, but we would probably agree broadly on certain attributes. Some of these appear to be measured reasonably well by subtests on IQ tests. Some do not (see my post on the other thread).

What are these other measures of intelligence?

For instance, we can try to measure achievement, curiosity, creativity and practical problem solving. One big criticism of IQ tests is that they lack "ecological validity" - someone may be baffled by a Matrix Reasoning puzzle, but be able to solve the same problem without difficult if presented in the context of a practical problem that actually requires a solution.

This depends on the type of test being administered. There are non-verbal IQ tests that measure intelligence by reaction time. The racial gap is largest on tests of this sort.

Timed tests load heavily on speed of processing. Tests with a heavy speed component are quicker to administer (and therefore popular), but penalise those who are slower but just as able to solve tasks of equal or greater difficulty. Some people score much higher on Stanford Binet tests than Wechsler because Stanford Binet presents tasks of increasing difficulty, whereas Wechsler tests tend to include a time component. I have known children who score poorly on Wechsler subtests solve equivalent Stanford Binet items of far greater difficulty.

Language is similar to intelligence in that it is another example of gene-environment interaction. The capacity to learn language is innate. The content of language is largely a product of the environment.

The content of language is entirely a product of the environment. If no Hungarian is spoken in your environment you won't learn any. More to the point if you are raised in an linguistically impoverished setting, your verbal IQ is likely to be lower than if you were raised in linguistically rich setting. Access to reading materials, for example, is a strong determinant of verbal IQ.

Intelligence is simply the ability to process information and manipulate abstractions. "Curiosity, self-efficacy, and creativity" are not synonymous with intelligence.

Intelligence is not "simply" anything. If you think this, you have no business to be making generalisations about intelligence and race. Nothing useful is "synonymous" with intelligence - that's why we have have the word intelligence. It is a complex construct that is only approximately measured by IQ tests, and the extent to which IQ tests measures it is itself a function of factors unrelated to the underlying construct.

[Febble]

Oops, didn't realize Febble is in the cognition field.

No worries. My MA research was in giftedness in children. My PhD was on temporal and spatial attention in dyslexia.

[JamesBannon]

No worries. My MA research was in giftedness in children. My PhD was on temporal and spatial attention in dyslexia.
I hate you!:D I am of course kidding.

Actually you do bring up a very good point about the different kinds of tests. For example, I'm not that great at speed tests as I get all flustered and what not but I do quite well in others that do not have a speed component. My profile has me as a "fact finder" rather than "problem solver" or "creative".

You see Orpheus, the variability is so great that any attempt at eugenics is doomed to failure. In any case it is manifestly absurd to suggest that because a person has some kind of talent that others do not possess that person is somehow of greater worth.

[Majestyk]

Intelligence is not "simply" anything. If you think this, you have no business to be making generalisations about intelligence and race. Concur.

[whichphilosophy]

I agree. Considering it's "normal" to believe in magical sky fairies, I'll take abnormal, thankyouverymuch.

Sounds good because the goal posts of normality changes with different groups cultures and even neighbourhoods.

Abnormal sounds okay.

[whichphilosophy]

False. We know down syndrome and fragile-x syndrome are genetic diseases..

This is about low IQ not about specific defects.
Certain abnormalities and diseases including what you mentioned we have some knowledge of.


Argumentum ad Nazium

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html.

IQ as a means of ethnic cleansing as imported by the Nazis from America did happen. This is because different races were perceived to be inferior due to lower IQ and therefore society cleansed of this “burden.”
Unsubstantiated beliefs asserting low IQ is symptomatic of sub humanity is championed today by some influential groups, the origins of these beliefs passing through Nazi Germany. This is tracing the history of actual beliefs and events to today’s scenario.

Of course if we argued Hitler was a vegetarian therefore to abstain from eating meat would not answer the question of why his regime was responsible for so many deaths. The article is a bit of a smoke screen and does not really answer the point.


This really isn't surprising. The human genome itself was decoded a mere four years ago. We know very little about how the human brain functions period..

Studies show we are all one race.

This really isn't surprising. The human genome itself was decoded a mere four years ago. We know very little about how the human brain functions period.
Studies show we are all one race of course. Since we know very little about the brain we cannot say either that low IQ is a disease of the brain.


Argument from ignorance..


Research spearheaded by a belief seeking results to fit the belief are not scientific but based on logic not unlike our original superstitions.


Straw man.

Quoting from a de facto situation cannot be a straw man. However with more IQ testing it means that more high IQ people now have opportunities of better jobs. Yet the actual value of an employee cannot be judged upon IQ. High IQ in itself does not mean automatically mean more responsible, more capable or even more rational.

[JamesBannon]

It is a truism that the kind of results one finds depends on the kind of questions one asks. Even if there were so-called "racial differences in intelligence" (and I do not suppose for one minute that there are) it would mean nothing. The brute fact that certain respondents have to face is that there is only one species called Homo sapiens. Anyone ever find a living example of a sub-species or of a different species entirely?

[Febble]

Should low IQ be classified as a genetic disorder. By low, I mean IQs that are < 110. These should be considered genetic diseases because they prevent people from being attorneys, chemists, or executives. Hopefully a good eugenics program (via embryo selection) will purge the human gene pool of the low IQ alleles.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/34/Two_Curve_Bell_with_Jobs.jpg/420px-

One more point I should make, now I looked more closely at this plot. I would like to know the provenance of this plot. Because of my bad eyesight (I need new glasses) I had not noticed that the two curves were labelled "Black" and "White". This is extremely misleading. The curves are clearly NOT data. They are normal curves plotted against something labelled "WAIS". If the plots represented actual data they would be jagged, not smooth. So it is a made up plot. I presume it has been drawn to represent the "idealized" results from some study or other in which the mean WAIS score for "black" participants was lower than for "white" participants. The number of participants is not given. The variance is not given. The data points are not given. The operational definitions of "white" and "black" are not given. The sampling procedure is not given. The population from which the samples were drawn is not given. The plot, in other words, is without any meaning, except as a piece of racist propaganda, and should be treated as such, i.e. ignored.

[Febble]

I have just found the plot on Wiki, where it has the caption (omitted from the OP):

These are idealized normal curves comparing the IQs of Blacks and Whites in the US in 1981. Source: Social Consequences by Gottfredson. Labels show Gottefredson's expectations for job and life potential for people of different IQ's.

It appears to have been redrawn from this paper:

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf

which also fails to give any details about the data from which the chart was generated. It does not appear to have been published in any peer reviewed journal. While the paper is full of assertions, there is no reference list.

A search for peer-papers by the author reveals that she is fairly prolific. Most of her papers seemed to be single author papers. The chart in the OP also appears in the Wiki entry for the author (Linda Gottfredson).

Her work appears to be funded by the Pioneer Fund. I found six published papers by her with the keyword race, all single authored. None of them appear to involve either data or data analysis, apart from possibly one, which is a critique of a review by Rushton and Jensen. They appear to be op-ed pieces as far as I could tell.

I see no evidence that this author has done any actual research into the relationship between IQ and race.

[JamesBannon]

Nice history! It's been a long time since I looked at intelligence in any detail, but back when I was a university (20-odd years ago) twin studies were being "rubbished" even then. Is it still the same today?

[Febble]

Nice history! It's been a long time since I looked at intelligence in any detail, but back when I was a university (20-odd years ago) twin studies were being "rubbished" even then. Is it still the same today?

Well, IQ research isn't my field. I mainly use IQ measures so that we can model a bit more of the variance we aren't actually interested in. But what really irritates me about plots like these is that they acquire a life of their own on the internet, and have a spuriously factual look. There's another set of plots I keep coming across (on a completely different topic) which I once found on Wikipedia attributed to me. I deleted them, but they keep cropping up, still with no author, still easily verifiably wrong.

And there was a thread in Philosophy the other day (on "Females") where someone posted some assertion or other (people don't like female bosses) without citation, and the only thing I could find was a badly headlined study that actually showed the opposite (most people don't give a damn about the gender of their bosses).

So when people start discussing why something might be true, without first even establishing whether it is true, my hackles rise. It seems even weirder on an atheist forum where I am supposed to be the flakey theist!

[JamesBannon]

So when people start discussing why something might be true, without first even establishing whether it is true, my hackles rise. It seems even weirder on an atheist forum where I am supposed to be the flakey theist!

Who said infidels were rational?:) When you really get down to it, I'll bet you'd find that most reject some form of theism for what are largely irrational reasons. Then comes the post-rationalisations about why theism doesn't make logical sense. Even Dawkins admits as such: Darwin just "jived" - he certainly didn't arrive at a non-theistic position through pure rational examination of the evidence. Really it's just a form of "confirmation bias" on both sides of the divide.

[OripahsTrebor]

One more point I should make, now I looked more closely at this plot. I would like to know the provenance of this plot. Because of my bad eyesight (I need new glasses) I had not noticed that the two curves were labelled "Black" and "White". This is extremely misleading. The curves are clearly NOT data. They are normal curves plotted against something labelled "WAIS". If the plots represented actual data they would be jagged, not smooth. So it is a made up plot. I presume it has been drawn to represent the "idealized" results from some study or other in which the mean WAIS score for "black" participants was lower than for "white" participants. The number of participants is not given. The variance is not given. The data points are not given. The operational definitions of "white" and "black" are not given. The sampling procedure is not given. The population from which the samples were drawn is not given. The plot, in other words, is without any meaning, except as a piece of racist propaganda, and should be treated as such, i.e. ignored.

I do not think Gottfredson conducted any studies on race and intelligence (that is adminstering tests). However, her work focuses on the application on this research in society. One such application is health care inequalites, for example (http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/health.pdf).

[Febble]

I do not think Gottfredson conducted any studies on race and intelligence (that is adminstering tests). However, her work focuses on the application on this research in society. One such application is health care inequalites, for example (http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/health.pdf).

No, nor does she appear to have done any meta-analyses. I can't find any actual data analysis at all.

I've only briefly looked at the piece you linked to. In this she reviews various studies, but again, there is no meta-analysis.

I have nothing against research into the relationship between cognitive factors and SES - I think it is vital. But I am disturbed by the plot you posted. It's not the kind of plot that should have any life independent from the methodogy that was used to create it, and so far I have drawn a blank as to the methodology.

I think it should be deleted from Wikipedia.

[youngalexander]

No, nor does she appear to have done any meta-analyses. I can't find any actual data analysis at all.

I've only briefly looked at the piece you linked to. In this she reviews various studies, but again, there is no meta-analysis.

I have nothing against research into the relationship between cognitive factors and SES - I think it is vital. But I am disturbed by the plot you posted. It's not the kind of plot that should have any life independent from the methodogy that was used to create it, and so far I have drawn a blank as to the methodology.
What do you specifically object to?

The 1sd differences in Black-White group IQ? Try THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY (http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/235-2.html), altho the research does in fact go back nearly a century.

Gottfredson's annotations re social consequences? Try Linda S. Gottfredson (http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/index.html). She has rather an extensive background in this subject.
From the socialconsequences article you cited
The racial IQ gaps in the United States, portrayed in Figure 3, will be used to illustrate the social processes and controversies that such differences create within a multiracial nation.

You seem to be reacting as if this were some new revelation. The B-W differences have been measured consistently for a century. They have barely reduced in the last thirty years despite massive social interventions. Gottfredson is discussing the consequences of those differences in the light of various social theories and the unsuccessful attempts to reduce the differences.

Placing ones head firmly in the sand, as many contributors to this thread have done, will not make the data go away.
I think it should be deleted from Wikipedia.
Splendid!! Well, go ahead. That's the beauty of Wiki. Just delete them. Might be instructive reading your explanation.

[premjan]

You seem to be reacting as if this were some new revelation. The B-W differences have been measured consistently for a century. They have barely reduced in the last thirty years despite massive social interventions. Gottfredson is discussing the consequences of those differences in the light of various social theories and the unsuccessful attempts to reduce the differences.
How much have they changed in the last thirty years? Can you point me to the relevant figures?

[Febble]

What do you specifically object to?

I told you what I specifically objected to. Here is is again, formatted to help you read it :rolleyes: :

The curves are clearly NOT data. They are normal curves plotted against something labelled "WAIS". If the plots represented actual data they would be jagged, not smooth. So it is a made up plot. I presume it has been drawn to represent the "idealized" results from some study or other in which the mean WAIS score for "black" participants was lower than for "white" participants.

The number of participants is not given.
The variance is not given.
The data points are not given.
The operational definitions of "white" and "black" are not given.
The sampling procedure is not given.
The population from which the samples were drawn is not given.

The plot, in other words, is without any meaning, except as a piece of racist propaganda, and should be treated as such, i.e. ignored.

and:

But what really irritates me about plots like these is that they acquire a life of their own on the internet, and have a spuriously factual look.

And you wrote:

Placing ones head firmly in the sand, as many contributors to this thread have done, will not make the data go away.

My point is that the data have gone away. The data that generated those plots is not there. Not on WIKI, although the WIKI version does at least have a caption noting that the curves are "idealized" and giving the source, and not in the source itself. There is no data - no methodology - attached in any way to that plot that enables it to be interpreted.

So far from placing my head in the sand and hoping the data would go away - I went and looked for the bloody data. And couldn't find any in the source either, which does not increase the credibility of Gottfredson as far as I am concerned.

Nonetheless, I checked out her paper on SES and cognition, which seems to be a reasonable review article raising an interesting issue, namely the interaction between cognition and SES. As I said, research into this issue is vital (I've been involved a little in it myself), although Gottfredson, again, does no actual analysis.

Splendid!! Well, go ahead. That's the beauty of Wiki. Just delete them. Might be instructive reading your explanation.

Well, you can read it above, but I'll make it clear again here: without a link to the data and methodology that from which they were derived, the plots are useless for anything except racist propaganda.

No-one is hiding from the data, it is the data that are hidden.

[youngalexander]

Well, you can read it above, but I'll make it clear again here: without a link to the data and methodology that from which they were derived, the plots are useless for anything except racist propaganda.

No-one is hiding from the data, it is the data that are hidden.
Why do you suppose that I linked to the Rushton Jensen paper? The data is neither new nor controversial, but it is very extensive. The references in "Thirty years..." contain some of the data. The diagram is illustrative of well known and long published peer reviewed data.

It is simply absurd to demand that a discussion article should not illustrate what are well known and accepted facts.

What is controversial is the explanation of those facts. To describe a presentation of the fact of B-W IQ group difference as "racist propaganda" is to place ones head "firmly in the sand".

[JamesBannon]

Youngalexander, have you actually looked at what the OP is advocating? It proposes labelling people with an IQ of < 110, 10 points above average, as having a "genetic disorder". If that's not eugenics propaganda I don't know what is. Other than perhaps identifying vulnerable groups whose welfare might be compromised by modern social trends IQ is irrelevant.

In any case, what the hell gives anyone the right to label a person in this way? Jeez social divisions and inequalities are bad enough without creating a "genetic underclass".

[Febble]

Youngalexander, have you actually looked at what the OP is advocating? It proposes labelling people with an IQ of < 110, 10 points above average, as having a "genetic disorder". If that's not eugenics propaganda I don't know what is. Other than perhaps identifying vulnerable groups whose welfare might be compromised by modern social trends IQ is irrelevant.

In any case, what the hell gives anyone the right to label a person in this way? Jeez social divisions and inequalities are bad enough without creating a "genetic underclass".

And supports it with a meaningless plot, with even the meagre caption that would have made it at least clear that the distributions are "idealized" removed.

Youngalexander:

The plot does not "illustrate known and accepted facts". It doesn't even define "black" and "white". There are NO FACTS in the plot. It is merely a graphic assertion.

[youngalexander]

How much have they changed in the last thirty years? Can you point me to the relevant figures?
I googled "black white intelligence" and spent some time looking at the results since my previous references are a little out of date. The Wiki articles no doubt have late references, but are a trifle dubious for the usual reasons of bias - irrespective of where you are coming from.

Scientific America has an interesting article as do both R. Lynn and Charles Murray here (http://www.iapsych.com/articles/murray2007ip.pdf).
Unfortunately the first two require subscriptions and the latter does not agree with my Adobe, but you may have better luck.

Murray had a commentary article in 2005, but it has gone into the subscribe archives, altho I recall James T referencing it in one of our previous discussions. I reckon the "Thirty Years..." must have some recent data but I cannot locate it as of now. Gottfredson likewise discusses this, but alas I cannot locate it.

Sorry to be so vague, but the lit on this subject is immense and I have not looked at it for almost a year. I have been studiously avoiding this somewhat tendentious OP, but the stuff about Gottfredson got up my nose.

[youngalexander]

Youngalexander, have you actually looked at what the OP is advocating? It proposes labelling people with an IQ of < 110, 10 points above average, as having a "genetic disorder". If that's not eugenics propaganda I don't know what is. Other than perhaps identifying vulnerable groups whose welfare might be compromised by modern social trends IQ is irrelevant.

In any case, what the hell gives anyone the right to label a person in this way? Jeez social divisions and inequalities are bad enough without creating a "genetic underclass".
See the last sentence of my previous.

[JamesBannon]

Hi Lizzie
Whenever people start talking genetics, even some experts, my "spidey sense" starts tingling. Genetic science has a very bad history (as has evolutionary biology) of experts in the field attempting to apply it to social policy. It then gets into the hands of those who don't understand the numbers (and I'm in no way claiming that I do) like our historian friend in the OP who then use those numbers to target specific groups of peoples by calling them a "race". This makes about as much sense as measuring the length of people's noses and creating a category called "big noses" and identifying them as somehow "different" from the rest of the "normal nose" population. Ridiculous!

[toth8]

Should low IQ be classified as a genetic disorder. By low, I mean IQs that are < 110. These should be considered genetic diseases because they prevent people from being attorneys, chemists, or executives. Hopefully a good eugenics program (via embryo selection) will purge the human gene pool of the low IQ alleles.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/34/Two_Curve_Bell_with_Jobs.jpg/420px-

The average IQ is 90 - 100.

Below 70 is the threshold for mental retardation.

But I see nothing wrong with eugenics. All disabilities should be eradicated.

[JamesBannon]

Then we'll eradicate you. Let's see, we'll find something that labels you as disabled. Oh yes, you don't like children. Abnormal - eradicate. See how it works?

[youngalexander]

Youngalexander:

The plot does not "illustrate known and accepted facts". It doesn't even define "black" and "white". There are NO FACTS in the plot. It is merely a graphic assertion.
While you are deleting the offending graph, perhaps you might like to take a swing at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_race#Background_information) also, as well as all such assertive items in Wiki. Should keep you busy. After that... the www awaits.:)

[toth8]

So, I'm guessing the answer is 'yes'. Which is nice - despite your genetic flaws and the fact you are unsuitable to do some sorts of work - you can still be a valuable member of society.

Do you/others think that you should have been aborted or something when these conditions were detected?

BTW, I hope that one day some clever medicine can sort out your physical problems. Perhaps the cure will come along next week?

Why should anyone have a disability? Because some fatalistic, magical bullshit value system says so?

[toth8]

Then we'll eradicate you. Let's see, we'll find something that labels you as disabled. Oh yes, you don't like children. Abnormal - eradicate. See how it works?

Since when is that a disability? Maybe being Scottish is a disability too. should "we" eradicate you?

And I never called for anyone to be exterminated. Merely for the disabled DNA to be taken out and replaced with healthy DNA.

[Cosmo]

And if IQ is doing nothing more than measuring education, culture and class then it's hardly a justifcation for anything other than improving the material conditions of all.

It's a well recognized fact that IQ's have been increasing from generation to generation in defiance of a genetic explanation- Flynn effect. And what is particularly interesting is that the greatest gains have occurred in the so called "culture fair" Raven Matrices.

IQ is more about political ideology than science. When you look into it, it's whole basis is circular guesstimation. The tests are devised to reflect the rank order in school. If items fail to do this they are thrown out. To say that it's measuring innate differences is a long bow.

And from a genetics perspective essential human traits necessary for the survival of our species have little or no variation. Those traits that do have a lot of variation in them like height and weight ( quantitative traits) are not important. If IQ is an essential trait then it is damn well unlikely to be a quantitative trait. And this brings me back to Flynn, education, culture and class.

[JamesBannon]

Since when is that a disability? Maybe being Scottish is a disability too. should "we" eradicate you?

And I never called for anyone to be exterminated. Merely for the disabled DNA to be taken out and replaced with healthy DNA.
You could try I suppose but I wouldn't place bets on the success of that particular venture.:)

You entirely miss my point. I deliberately picked on a characteristic of yours that was entirely arbitrary. That is the point I was trying to make. Who says that "dislike of children" shouldn't be classed as "abnormal behaviour" which is heritable and therefore should be "eliminated from the gene pool"?

Besides this, what the hell does "healthy" mean when applied to a self-replicating molecule? It's meaningless drivel to talk in such terms. There are some genetic mutations that are advantageous in a given environment, the sickle cell trait is an example, but when expressed in a different environment are disadvantageous. Eugenics is a dangerous pipe dream!

[toth8]

Healthy DNA as in DNA which doesn't cause a physiological abnormality.

[JamesBannon]

Healthy DNA as in DNA which doesn't cause a physiological abnormality.
Again, except for some specific genetric diseases, this is meaningless. The way in which genes, and hence mutations, get expressed and interact with other genes is extremely complex. I am extremely doubtful that there will be a way of untying that particular knot.

[Savagemutt]

Healthy DNA as in DNA which doesn't cause a physiological abnormality.

So you want to stop human evolution?

[doc_simon]

Healthy DNA as in DNA which doesn't cause a physiological abnormality.

I could be persuaded that a belief in the benefits of eugenics is a "physiological abnormality".

[toth8]

But evolution involves mutations which lead to success (defined as breeding the most offspring) in a given physical environment. Most mutations that currently exist don't do that.

I don't see how mental retardation or cystic fibrosis do. it would be better if we could weed such things out from our genome.

[toth8]

I could be persuaded that a belief in the benefits of eugenics is a "physiological abnormality".

A belief that people should suffer with disabilities is an abnormal idea, even though you don't seem clear what the term physiological abnormality means.

[Savagemutt]

But evolution involves mutations which lead to success (defined as breeding the most offspring) in a given physical environment. Most mutations that currently exist don't do that.

I don't see how mental retardation or cystic fibrosis do. it would be better if we could weed such things out from our genome.

I think you're being entirely too simplistic about this. We are still ignorant about how some genes get turned on and off, and about how development after birth effects them. Sure it would be nice to eliminate fatal diseases, and that's something I would consider, but at what point is "mental retardation" a disease, rather than just a natural trait? Whose to say that a million years from now (if we're lucky enough to make it that far) our big brains won't be a detriment to our survival as a species?

[Febble]

Whose to say that a million years from now (if we're lucky enough to make it that far) our big brains won't be a detriment to our survival as a species?

They are already a threat to our survival as a species.

[whichphilosophy]

Why do you suppose that I linked to the Rushton Jensen paper? The data is neither new nor controversial, but it is very extensive. The references in "Thirty years..." contain some of the data. The diagram is illustrative of well known and long published peer reviewed data.

It is simply absurd to demand that a discussion article should not illustrate what are well known and accepted facts.

What is controversial is the explanation of those facts. To describe a presentation of the fact of B-W IQ group difference as "racist propaganda" is to place ones head "firmly in the sand".

At the same time Rushton and Hernstein based much of their research on the discredited Sir Cyril Burt whose mystery anonymous researchers were never found along with their studies. Similarily the right wing Pioneer Fund bankrolled the writers with US$1m to help them compile their research and publish their book. The Pioneer Fund of course even before the research was ever conducted supported the concept of "racia superiority."

However if race does in fact not exist, then one race cannot have an average IQ higher than another throwing more doubt on the validity of Hernstein's/Murray's claims.

Rushton a well known advocate from the University of Ontario went one further and conducted research into Penis sizes, claiming that the lower Q the bigger the Penis. He was asking people how large their penises were and how far they could fire. Of course by that logic, the larger the IQ the smaller the penis, wherein we could say that of the highest intelligent of all would all but dissapear altogether.

[Febble]

The average IQ is 90 - 100.

What's this supposed to mean?

[Febble]

While you are deleting the offending graph, perhaps you might like to take a swing at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_race#Background_information) also, as well as all such assertive items in Wiki. Should keep you busy. After that... the www awaits.:)

Your total evasion of my point is noted.

[toth8]

I think you're being entirely too simplistic about this. We are still ignorant about how some genes get turned on and off, and about how development after birth effects them. Sure it would be nice to eliminate fatal diseases, and that's something I would consider, but at what point is "mental retardation" a disease, rather than just a natural trait? Whose to say that a million years from now (if we're lucky enough to make it that far) our big brains won't be a detriment to our survival as a species?

But you said that we shouldn't choose because all mutations are equal. They aren't in an evolutionary sense. In an evolutionary sense, only mutations which enable the most offspring and adaptation to physical environments are "good" mutations. My point was that mental retardation doesn't increase survival in any human habitat in the world, as far as we know.

As yes, maybe having a large brain is not an objective good. So what?

[Savagemutt]

But you said that we shouldn't choose because all mutations are equal.

Umm, where did I say this? I asked you if you wanted to stop human evolution altogether, which was in response to your saying we should weed out or repair DNA that causes "physiological abnormalities" which could include anything from webbed feet to having slightly larger ears than normal.

They aren't in an evolutionary sense. In an evolutionary sense, only mutations which enable the most offspring and adaptation to physical environments are "good" mutations. My point was that mental retardation doesn't increase survival in any human habitat in the world, as far as we know.

And maybe it would be a good thing to fix, if we can, but once you've fixed all the genes of people with potential IQs below 70 (or whatever), you're then going to have a lot of people with IQs just above that threshold. Why not fix them? Why not just make everyone a potential genius? And can you not envision the problems that might pop up because of that? That's why I thought you were being simplistic. Messing with our genetic structure is a serious thing that needs to be thought out, particularly since we're a long way from truly understanding that structure.

[JamesBannon]

But evolution involves mutations which lead to success (defined as breeding the most offspring) in a given physical environment. Most mutations that currently exist don't do that.

I don't see how mental retardation or cystic fibrosis do. it would be better if we could weed such things out from our genome.
Since when is "mental retardation" genetic? Since when are all genetic disorders heritable? Even I, a relative ignoramous on this subject, know that this isn't the case.

[toth8]

Umm, where did I say this? I asked you if you wanted to stop human evolution altogether, which was in response to your saying we should weed out or repair DNA that causes "physiological abnormalities" which could include anything from webbed feet to having slightly larger ears than normal.

Which medical text cites having slightly larger ears than normal as a medical condition? I'd think it's quite clear what an abnormality in the mechanics of the body is.



And maybe it would be a good thing to fix, if we can, but once you've fixed all the genes of people with potential IQs below 70 (or whatever), you're then going to have a lot of people with IQs just above that threshold. Why not fix them? Why not just make everyone a potential genius? And can you not envision the problems that might pop up because of that? That's why I thought you were being simplistic. Messing with our genetic structure is a serious thing that needs to be thought out, particularly since we're a long way from truly understanding that structure.

The lower IQ people, who were above the retardation threshold, could still function in society.

[toth8]

Since when is "mental retardation" genetic?

It's congenital and genetic by definition.

Since when are all genetic disorders heritable? Even I, a relative ignoramous on this subject, know that this isn't the case.

When did I say that?

[Febble]

I'd think it's quite clear what an abnormality in the mechanics of the body is.


who were above the retardation threshold

Neither of these things are the least bit "clear", which is one of the many things wrong with your proposal.

[Febble]

It's congenital and genetic by definition.

Congenital does not mean the same as genetic, and some forms of mental retardation may be acquired, by meningitis, for instance.

[toth8]

Neither of these things are the least bit "clear", which is one of the many things wrong with your proposal.

http://coy.state.va.us/Modalities/retardation.htm

"The threshold for mental retardation is typically set at 70, and experts generally agree that scores of 71-75 are only consistent with mental retardation when significant deficits in adaptive behavior are present (Szymanski & King)."

I don't see why this is as arbitrary as you think.

[Febble]

http://coy.state.va.us/Modalities/retardation.htm

"The threshold for mental retardation is typically set at 70, and experts generally agree that scores of 71-75 are only consistent with mental retardation when significant deficits in adaptive behavior are present (Szymanski & King)."

I don't see why this is as arbitrary as you think.


An IQ of 70 means that your IQ score was two standard deviations below the mean of the population used to norm the test. In other words that your score was in the range of the lowest 2.5% of the people on whom the test was normed (usually a sample of several hundred people).

If you were somehow to eliminate all people with IQ scores below 70, the next generation of tests would still identify those with scores in the lowest 2.5% as having an IQ below 70. And so on.

It is arbitrary because it is simply another way of saying "those with IQ scores in the range scored by 2.5% of the population". If you get rid of that 2.5% from the populataion then the lowest 2.5% of the new population are now "mentally retarded" - by your criterion.

[toth8]

It's not as arbitrary as it may seem. Some of the symptoms are a lack of functioning in society. People with IQ's under 70 demonstrate such traits.

Someone with a 90 IQ can function well enough in society, so it's not a matter of recalibrating the scale all of the time.

[Febble]

It's not as arbitrary as it may seem. Some of the symptoms are a lack of functioning in society. People with IQ's under 70 demonstrate such traits.

Someone with a 90 IQ can function well enough in society, so it's not a matter of recalibrating the scale all of the time.

Society is made up of a population with a mean IQ of 100, by definition. The further you are from the mean, the less well suited to that society you will be (this is even, to a certain extent, true of those in the high tail). If you eliminate the low tail (even if you could), your new low tail is likely to struggle with the new society.

But the much more important issue is what determines whether your score ends up in the low tail. Some factors are identifiable, and scientists can and do try to prevent/eliminate these, and of these, only a few are genetic. Others may simply be the hand you happen to be dealt. Some traits can contribute to successful functioning if found in combination with other traits, but impair successful functioning if found in different combinations. Many traits have an inverted U shaped function WRT to success. Too little is bad; too much is bad, just enough is just right. Think Goldilocks.

This means that your project, even if it were ethical or wise, is doomed. And of course it is neither ethical nor wise.

[toth8]

Society is made up of a population with a mean IQ of 100, by definition. The further you are from the mean, the less well suited to that society you will be (this is even, to a certain extent, true of those in the high tail). If you eliminate the low tail (even if you could), your new low tail is likely to struggle with the new society.

How? How does a genius level IQ person struggle with society? Do they have trouble performing simple tasks or even being able to speak, like a retarded person would?

But the much more important issue is what determines whether your score ends up in the low tail. Some factors are identifiable, and scientists can and do try to prevent/eliminate these, and of these, only a few are genetic. Others may simply be the hand you happen to be dealt. Some traits can contribute to successful functioning if found in combination with other traits, but impair successful functioning if found in different combinations. Many traits have an inverted U shaped function WRT to success. Too little is bad; too much is bad, just enough is just right. Think Goldilocks.

This means that your project, even if it were ethical or wise, is doomed. And of course it is neither ethical nor wise.

Why is it unethical?

[JamesBannon]

The amount of ignorance shown by some respondents in this thread is simply staggering. We sceptics are being given a lesson in reason by a theist, the very type of person we routinely accuse of being delusional. My irony meter has just exploded! Get thyself an education. If the education you have leads you to make the conclusions I have seen here then get it changed because it ain't working!

[doc_simon]

Some of the symptoms are a lack of functioning in society.

Perhaps this is defined somewhere, but I'm concerned as to what would constitute 'functioning in society'.

I recently heard about a famous mathematician (I forget his name**) who was a genius at maths, but could not boil an egg or use the bus system. Clearly, without a lot of support, this guy has a hard time functioning in normal society.

**ETA: I think it might have been Paul Erdos (http://primehead.com/erdos/erdos_bio.html).

[toth8]

Is that really indicative of all supposed genius IQ level people? I doubt it.

Some mentally retarded people can't even speak, let alone do basic tasks. What is wrong in raising the quality of life of such people?

Or should we be stuck with such conditions, because some fatalistic morals say we should?

[doc_simon]

Is that really indicative of all supposed genius IQ level people? I doubt it.

No, but it helps us consider the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we use poor definitions of abnormal/functioning etc.

Perhaps you could provide the definition of functioning in society that would allow people like the guy I mentioned in a previous post, falling victim to your plan?


He was eleven years old when he learned to tie his shoelaces and he was over twenty years old when he realised that he never had learned to butter bread for himself. linky (http://primehead.com/erdos/erdos_bio.html)



Some mentally retarded people can't even speak, let alone do basic tasks. What is wrong in raising the quality of life of such people?


Nothing is wrong with wishing to improve their condition. But if my understanding is correct, you wish to help these people by ensuring they would never exist in the first place.




Or should we be stuck with such conditions, because some fatalistic morals say we should?

No, we just have to find an appropriate way to sort out the issue.

If we had a magic device that could zap peoples genes into a less broken state, I may advocate it's use. It would have to be perfectly contrallable. But I've yet to see any process suggested by eugenics advocates that would actually work, with no unintended consequences.

[JamesBannon]

Is that really indicative of all supposed genius IQ level people? I doubt it.

Some mentally retarded people can't even speak, let alone do basic tasks. What is wrong in raising the quality of life of such people?

Or should we be stuck with such conditions, because some fatalistic morals say we should?

Once again; mental retardation is not necessarily genetic. Do some reading.

[LukeS]

Numerous studies link low IQ to violent behavior, delinquency, and adult crime. (http://www.crimetimes.org/95c/w95cp10.htm)

I would support a eugenics policy more if this type of information were involved in the debate, rather than the lawyer vs window cleaner issue, as both of the latter contribute and pose no threat.
However... what harm has a sub Saharan African ever done to you? And (Orpheus) what would you do to him?

[toth8]

No, but it helps us consider the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we use poor definitions of abnormal/functioning etc.

Perhaps you could provide the definition of functioning in society that would allow people like the guy I mentioned in a previous post, falling victim to your plan?





Nothing is wrong with wishing to improve their condition. But if my understanding is correct, you wish to help these people by ensuring they would never exist in the first place.


No, by simply removing the retardation so they can live normal lives.




No, we just have to find an appropriate way to sort out the issue.

If we had a magic device that could zap peoples genes into a less broken state, I may advocate it's use. It would have to be perfectly contrallable. But I've yet to see any process suggested by eugenics advocates that would actually work, with no unintended consequences.

Eugenics is the future of human evolution.

[David B]

No, by simply removing the retardation so they can live normal lives.





Eugenics is the future of human evolution.

Well, I don't think that eugenics is the human future.

Because of the practical difficulties in deciding what is for the best, among many other reasons.

Perhaps some might think that those who have difficulty in empathising with other people, especially children, are impaired.

Perhaps some people might think that those who are blind enough to observe that pretty people have something of an advantage over ugly people, but not perspicacious enough to see that other factors can be more important than that with regarding to find friends, or mates, are impaired.

David B

[toth8]

Well, I don't think that eugenics is the human future.

Because of the practical difficulties in deciding what is for the best, among many other reasons.

What difficulties? All conditions listed as medical genetic disorders.

Perhaps some might think that those who have difficulty in empathising with other people, especially children, are impaired.

Perhaps some people might think that those who are blind enough to observe that pretty people have something of an advantage over ugly people, but not perspicacious enough to see that other factors can be more important than that with regarding to find friends, or mates, are impaired.

David B

So what? Everyone has selective empathy anyhow.

[David B]

What difficulties? All conditions listed as medical genetic disorders.

Considerable difficulties. In the right context, for instance, a genetic tendency to pass on a tendency for sickle cell anaemia can have a net advantage, as cutting down susceptibility to malaria.

I've read a serious book claiming that schizophrenic genes have had serious plusses for the development of humanity. And I'm personally convinced that without a proportion of the population with a greater or lesser tendency to autism, the technological society could never have kicked off.


So what? Everyone has selective empathy anyhow.

Everyone has, if I understand what you mean by selective empathy, selective capabilities of grasping different sorts of concepts, too.

How is way subnormal capacity for empathy less suited to live than way subnormal capability to answer a certain sort of concept related question?

David B

[premjan]

I googled "black white intelligence" and spent some time looking at the results since my previous references are a little out of date. The Wiki articles no doubt have late references, but are a trifle dubious for the usual reasons of bias - irrespective of where you are coming from.

Scientific America has an interesting article as do both R. Lynn and Charles Murray here (http://www.iapsych.com/articles/murray2007ip.pdf).
Unfortunately the first two require subscriptions and the latter does not agree with my Adobe, but you may have better luck.

Murray had a commentary article in 2005, but it has gone into the subscribe archives, altho I recall James T referencing it in one of our previous discussions. I reckon the "Thirty Years..." must have some recent data but I cannot locate it as of now. Gottfredson likewise discusses this, but alas I cannot locate it.

Sorry to be so vague, but the lit on this subject is immense and I have not looked at it for almost a year. I have been studiously avoiding this somewhat tendentious OP, but the stuff about Gottfredson got up my nose.I find myself becoming more interested in raw cognitive ability rather than normalized measures for populations. This is because normalization actually throws away a lot of data - it ignores the fact that most populations have rising IQs due to the Flynn effect. It lumps together different kinds of tests. This is because this kind of research is focused on differentiating between racial groups based on statistical intelligence measures, and also has the implicit assumption of general intelligence being sufficient to distinguish groups, behind it. Whereas different groups vary in not just g but also more specific cognitive measures. Whereas a more hopeful message would be to look at the ability of these tests to measure the cognitive performance of individuals and decide what sorts of strengths and weaknesses such an individual is likely to have and what sorts of educational interventions could help increase the expression of their potential. I have been derided as rather silly and populist in the past by some posters having an interest in this topic and I don't deny that there is some benefit to not being populist. But I still feel that this topic suffers a bit from polarization. It is not necessarily heroic to harp on bad news and may be beneficial to be constructive and show the full picture. As I see it, eugenics could help to raise the cognitive performance of homo sapiens across the bar, which could be a useful goal. Or we could focus on improving our societal systems to accommodate people in whatever cognitive form we naturally find them.

[c davis]

The amount of ignorance shown by some respondents in this thread is simply staggering. We sceptics are being given a lesson in reason by a theist, the very type of person we routinely accuse of being delusional. My irony meter has just exploded! Get thyself an education. If the education you have leads you to make the conclusions I have seen here then get it changed because it ain't working!

I agree!

[toth8]

Considerable difficulties. In the right context, for instance, a genetic tendency to pass on a tendency for sickle cell anaemia can have a net advantage, as cutting down susceptibility to malaria.

I've read a serious book claiming that schizophrenic genes have had serious plusses for the development of humanity. And I'm personally convinced that without a proportion of the population with a greater or lesser tendency to autism, the technological society could never have kicked off.

So when the technology arises we can select out the sickle cell genes and develop cures for malaria.

And why is technological advancement linked to autism? Not all people who are autistic are technical.




Everyone has, if I understand what you mean by selective empathy, selective capabilities of grasping different sorts of concepts, too.

How is way subnormal capacity for empathy less suited to live than way subnormal capability to answer a certain sort of concept related question?

David B

Everyone has selective empathy because they literally pick and choose what to have empathy for.

[Wretchosoft]

Should low IQ be classified as a genetic disorder. By low, I mean IQs that are < 110. These should be considered genetic diseases because they prevent people from being attorneys, chemists, or executives. Hopefully a good eugenics program (via embryo selection) will purge the human gene pool of the low IQ alleles.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/34/Two_Curve_Bell_with_Jobs.jpg/420px-

If anyone hasn't noticed already, the cutoff point is set precisely at the average for "whites" with no clear justification. Come on now, try to hide your racist tendencies a little better.

[modernPrimitive]

Should low IQ be classified as a genetic disorder. By low, I mean IQs that are < 110. These should be considered genetic diseases because they prevent people from being attorneys, chemists, or executives. Hopefully a good eugenics program (via embryo selection) will purge the human gene pool of the low IQ alleles.

Yeah chemists and attorneys make the world go round. :banghead:

[David B]

So when the technology arises we can select out the sickle cell genes and develop cures for malaria.

And why is technological advancement linked to autism? Not all people who are autistic are technical.




Everyone has selective empathy because they literally pick and choose what to have empathy for.


You ask me questions, while failing to answer mine. Or anyone elses, really, except the odd little phrase that doesn't really say anything. Unless it is plain wrong.

You say, in other threads, that (to paraphrase) respect has to be earned.

You have earned none.

Zero. Zilch.

David B

[barbos]

If anyone hasn't noticed already, the cutoff point is set precisely at the average for "whites" with no clear justification. Come on now, try to hide your racist tendencies a little better.
Average for whites on that picture is between 102-103.

[Wretchosoft]

Ack, read it wrong. The implications are still quite similar though.

[Vicious Love]

Foolish racist pseudoscientists! All flesh is inferior. All flesh must be purged. So speaks The Machine.

[Febble]

Average for whites on that picture is between 102-103.

The plot is not of data. See my posts here, and later:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4439715#post4439715

[toth8]

You say, in other threads, that (to paraphrase) respect has to be earned.


Respect is earned. Everyone knows that. Don't you? <edit>

And why should I answer all of your questions? I don't see why someone I don't know over an anonymous medium should know any aspect of my life.

[JamesBannon]

Ack, read it wrong. The implications are still quite similar though.
What is more the subtext is obvious from the OP: eliminate the genes of anyone who is inferior especially if they just happen to have an "excess" of melanin pigment and "flattened, widened" nostrils.

[David B]

Respect is earned. Everyone knows that. Don't you? <consistency>

And why should I answer all of your questions? I don't see why someone I don't know over an anonymous medium should know any aspect of my life.

Well, if you want to know my views, which you probably won't, about how and why a tendency for autism continues in the human genome, do some searches, for autism and/or aspergers, and you'll find them.

I can't be arsed to explain them again to you, because, frankly, I don't take to you, and am far from sure that you have the capability to understand them

David B (views respect as a default position, and needs good reason to abandon it)