[margaret_hatcher]

I am not asking about the ethical implications of introducing such extreme measures. I know this may seem a controversial topic but I am going to keep this short and sweet.

(Hypothetical) If in the year 2012 a secret terror organization ransomed our government with a potential solution to humanity's destruction caused by the proposed inevitable polar shift. Amongst their demands was a clause to introduce a eugenics policy for a quota of mankinds elite. What criterion would you implement for this eugenics policy. You have to have at least five specific requirements. These are the people who I would allow to pass on their genes (not killing anyone).

To start this thread off with a bang. I would suggest.

1. IQ- Over 90.

2. Medical History- This is a complicated one, but a damaging medical history would definitely be problematic.

3. Has contributed to society i.e. Worked for at least 10 years. Or contributed in some other way.

4. BMI- Under 25 (bf system would be better, I don't know what the healthy range is for that however).

5. Needs to be validated by their community- Their community has the right to void an individual to have children.

[KimKallstrom]

I would suggest that if somebody has an IQ of over 140 they are exempt from the BMI index.

Also, if they can run an ironman triathlon, they are exempt from the IQ test.

[S-man10]

IQ over 90? Wrong.

IQ over 115 would be better. When the modal IQ is 115, violent crime is virtually absent.

[marshey]

(Original post by S-man10)
IQ over 90? Wrong.

IQ over 115 would be better. When the modal IQ is 115, crime is virtually absent.

Nonsense.

[HearTheThunder]

(Original post by marshey)
Nonsense.

Yep, Hitler for example had a very high IQ.

(Invoke Godwin's law)

[S-man10]

(Original post by marshey)
Nonsense.

why do you say that?

[mikeylfc1989]

(Original post by S-man10)
why do you say that?

When smart people commit crimes, they are harder to catch. I would put the IQ up to 110 at least though.

[marshey]

(Original post by HearTheThunder)
Yep, Hitler for example had a very high IQ.

(Invoke Godwin's law)

Lol! I have myself on occasion.

I was also taking exception with the word 'modal'. He could have meant modal, but I very much doubt it. A global modal IQ of 115 would be a bastard for grammar schools.

[marshey]

(Original post by S-man10)
why do you say that?

1. You have no evidence for what you said.
2. James Bond movies show us that high IQ creates master villians, not peace loving pacifists.
3. Look up what 'mode' means before you use it.

[S-man10]

(Original post by mikeylfc1989)
When smart people commit crimes, they are harder to catch. I would put the IQ up to 110 at least though.

Apologies, I meant violent crime would b be virtually absent.

Thats just the borderline. There are many other factors to consider simultaneously.

[S-man10]

(Original post by marshey)
1. You have no evidence for what you said.
2. James Bond movies show us that high IQ creates master villians, not peace loving pacifists.
3. Look up what 'mode' means before you use it.

James Bond is fiction. Not reality.

Mode mean the value or number that is most repeated.

Source? 2 articles for you to read. Written by an expert psychometrist who has developed high-range IQ test which accepted for the higher range IQ societies.

1. Human Evolution: http://www.paulcooijmans.com/evoluti...evolution.html

2.Human degeneration (read and shiver):
http://www.paulcooijmans.com/evoluti...eneration.html

[S-man10]

(Original post by marshey)
1. You have no evidence for what you said.
2. James Bond movies show us that high IQ creates master villians, not peace loving pacifists.
3. Look up what 'mode' means before you use it.

How Sad that you have to go and neg..

The truth hurts doesn't it?

No offence mate, but if a situation like this does come up, you would be one of the many who does not make it......

[marshey]

(Original post by S-man10)
James Bond is fiction. Not reality.

Mode mean the value or number that is most repeated.

Source? 2 articles for you to read. Written by an expert psychometrist who has developed high-range IQ test which accepted for the higher range IQ societies.

1. Human Evolution: http://www.paulcooijmans.com/evoluti...evolution.html

2.Human degeneration (read and shiver):
http://www.paulcooijmans.com/evoluti...eneration.html

It's interesting how irony flies above the heads of the ignorant. It's also flattering that you took 15 minutes to search google and find two articles to support your theories, but you still seem to miss the point I was making.

"When the modal IQ is 115, crime is virtually absent."

Your statement can only be taken one way; when most people have the IQ of exactly 115 then crime is virtually absent. I'm willing to bet my genitals on this:

You meant mean or median, not mode, and you have read somewhere that a higher IQ correlates with less crime. The number 115 might not have been plucked straight out of the air, but for what it's worth I think it has.

I could, and might, take the time to read the articles you sighted, but I'd also bet my genitals that it will nowhere say that a globally uniform IQ of exactly 115 will create utopia. As I am sure you know already, neither article says this. So you need to revise your earlier statement, and then thank me for highlighting it for you, sir.

[marshey]

(Original post by S-man10)
How Sad that you have to go and neg..

The truth hurts doesn't it?

No offence mate, but if a situation like this does come up, you would be one of the many who does not make it......

Read the above post. I'll play the smallest violin whilst waiting for you to reply.

[S-man10]

(Original post by marshey)
It's interesting how irony flies above the heads of the ignorant. It's also flattering that you took 15 minutes to search google and find two articles to support your theories, but you still seem to miss the point I was making.

"When the modal IQ is 115, crime is virtually absent."

Your statement can only be taken one way; when most people have the IQ of exactly 115 then crime is virtually absent. I'm willing to bet my genitals on this:

You meant mean or median, not mode, and you have read somewhere that a higher IQ correlates with less crime. The number 115 might not have been plucked straight out of the air, but for what it's worth I think it has.

I could, and might, take the time to read the articles you sighted, but I'd also bet my genitals that it will nowhere say that a globally uniform IQ of exactly 115 will create utopia. As I am sure you know already, neither article says this. So you need to revise your earlier statement, and then thank me for highlighting it for you, sir.

How wrong is your assumption that I searched google for the article.

Obviously I had read them before I could post such a statement. An I clearly meant mode. Not mean or median. Both in this context would make no sense.

Mean means the average. Having an average of 115 still means that there extremes on both end of the scale.

Median means middle value. How does that make sense.

Btw I would do like to apologise. When the minimum modal IQ is 115, then violent crime is virtually absent.

And the number wasnt just straight plucked out of the air. Heres another article for you to consider http://www.paulcooijmans.com/intelli...iq_ranges.html

Read the table near the end in this article. I meant modal i.e. most occurring. The modal IQ is taken as the centre of a range where there is 5-10 plus of minus of large parts of the population.
http://www.paulcooijmans.com/evoluti...evolution.html

For your sake I hope you understand, otherwise it is your genitals and your tiny weiner you are currently playing with in trouble.

[dfjr]

(Original post by margaret_hatcher)
X

You're threads are getting sort of annoying now.

TSR often has the tendency to go on about things such as height, religion, attractiveness of different races. Over discussion of these sort of things can make the reader of the thread more aware and more insecure/ worried of that particular trait of theirs. In real life, people don't talk about these issues so much, as really it's not worth dwelling upon. It achieves very little really, it just makes people sad. In addition since this is an internet forum, some stupid posters make offensive, jeering comments which can make matters worse.

The discussion in these threads is not particularly eye opening, or interesting anyway. For example this thread. Your topic implies that people who fail to meet these certain criteria you have stated are somehow inferior. Life is far more fun if you don't get bogged down by this "survival of the fittest" stuff.

This isn't meant to be a direct attack on you, but all these threads discussing the possible negative implications race, religion, height, weight, is really making TSR depressing. Perhaps it ok in moderation, but these days, several seem to be created each day. And it's all the same stuff that's been discussed before in previous threads. The only difference is that the repetition of the same views again and again can make the reader (who's now become insecure having read the thread) again and again.

[marshey]

(Original post by S-man10)
How wrong is your assumption that I searched google for the article.

Obviously I had read them before I could post such a statement. An I clearly meant mode. Not mean or median. Both in this context would make no sense.

Mean means the average. Having an average of 115 still means that there extremes on both end of the scale.

Median means middle value. How does that make sense.

Btw I would do like to apologise. When the minimum modal IQ is 115, then violent crime is virtually absent.

And the number wasnt just straight plucked out of the air. Heres another article for you to consider http://www.paulcooijmans.com/intelli...iq_ranges.html

Read the table near the end in this article. I meant modal i.e. most occurring. The modal IQ is taken as the centre of a range where there is 5-10 plus of minus of large parts of the population.
http://www.paulcooijmans.com/evoluti...evolution.html

For your sake I hope you understand, otherwise it is your genitals and your tiny weiner you are currently playing with in trouble.

Thanks for the apology. Anyone who reads the last few posts would see exactly who was correct and who was not. You clearly can't distinguish, generally, between what is correct and what is not.

Example: 'Mean means the average.' No. Wrong. Mean is an average, but it does not at all equal average. When you make primary school errors such as this, I can see how you think I could be the one that is confused. This however, does not mean you are correct, just as the voices a schizophrenic hears are not always there.

You did not answer the point I made about the literal meaning in what you wrote. You did revised your earlier statement to now be: 'When the minimum modal IQ is 115, then violent crime is virtually absent'. This is actually wrong on it's face; you can't have a minimum mode for a set of data. You have one mode, that's it. So you're new corrected statement would be 'When the modal IQ is 115, then violent crime is virtually absent'. This statement is now as incorrect as the original for the reasons previously.

All you have to do is admit you meant to say mean or median IQ and I will stop making you look silly. Oh and ad hominem is only used when a debater has lost the argument but unwilling to admit defeat; it's delicious to see you giving up your dignity.

[goldsilvy]

(Original post by marshey)
Thanks for the apology. Anyone who reads the last few posts would see exactly who was correct and who was not. You clearly can't distinguish, generally, between what is correct and what is not.

Example: 'Mean means the average.' No. Wrong. Mean is an average, but it does not at all equal average. When you make primary school errors such as this, I can see how you think I could be the one that is confused. This however, does not mean you are correct, just as the voices a schizophrenic hears are not always there.

You did not answer the point I made about the literal meaning in what you wrote. You did revised your earlier statement to now be: 'When the minimum modal IQ is 115, then violent crime is virtually absent'. This is actually wrong on it's face; you can't have a minimum mode for a set of data. You have one mode, that's it. So you're new corrected statement would be 'When the modal IQ is 115, then violent crime is virtually absent'. This statement is now as incorrect as the original for the reasons previously.

All you have to do is admit you meant to say mean or median IQ and I will stop making you look silly. Oh and ad hominem is only used when a debater has lost the argument but unwilling to admit defeat; it's delicious to see you giving up your dignity.

Well, you can have a multi-modal distribution - click.

[marshey]

(Original post by goldsilvy)
Well, you can have a multi-modal distribution - click.

Ok, yes you're right I was wrong to say that. If you look at how he used 'minimum mode', then you can you might see why I simplfied it.

Can you do me a favour? Can you look back at what I've said to him and tell me whether I was correct in what I said? Fine if you say no, but if you do please excuse the condescention.

[S-man10]

(Original post by marshey)
Thanks for the apology. Anyone who reads the last few posts would see exactly who was correct and who was not. You clearly can't distinguish, generally, between what is correct and what is not.

Example: 'Mean means the average.' No. Wrong. Mean is an average, but it does not at all equal average. When you make primary school errors such as this, I can see how you think I could be the one that is confused. This however, does not mean you are correct, just as the voices a schizophrenic hears are not always there.

You did not answer the point I made about the literal meaning in what you wrote. You did revised your earlier statement to now be: 'When the minimum modal IQ is 115, then violent crime is virtually absent'. This is actually wrong on it's face; you can't have a minimum mode for a set of data. You have one mode, that's it. So you're new corrected statement would be 'When the modal IQ is 115, then violent crime is virtually absent'. This statement is now as incorrect as the original for the reasons previously.

All you have to do is admit you meant to say mean or median IQ and I will stop making you look silly. Oh and ad hominem is only used when a debater has lost the argument but unwilling to admit defeat; it's delicious to see you giving up your dignity.

Apologies for that also. Mean is an average. But yet the mean does not always correctly represent the data. There are usually extremes that are taken into account.

Also how correct it is to use median for a data of 6 billion people?

Therefore mode is the most sensible here. By minimum modal I meant, the minimum value of the mode. Obviously you have one mode of a set of data, but the value of the mode, of that certain data needs to be at least 115. Otherwise my statement would be false. Clear now?

Now your just making this personal, usually meaning that maybe hes right and I maybe wrong. I meant it as a general statement at first and if you were so certain about about why I was wrong at least you should asked me rather than jump to conclusions. I was wrong and I admit it. But now I hope it is clear for you.

Plus if I did mean it median or mean, there is a nice little edit button for me to use. And I would have subsequently apologised to everyone who may have quoted me.


Edit: take the time to read the 3 articles, they are worth it for your understanding.