Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    ok - I just seen this link in andyukguy's sig, and felt the need to rebut it. It's like a bit like reading a great big pile of flaws.

    Rather than dismiss it sentence-by-sentence, I'll just deal with the central claims (as identified by the paper).

    "1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary. "
    This is far from proven; there's too much difficulty finding a culture-free definition of intelligence (never mind a culture-fair instrument to measure it!). Each of the studies brought in to support this position has been dismissed by mainstream psychometry - most notably, the twin studies were rubbished as the author (Cyril Burt) has been exposed as a fraud who fabricated lots of data.

    "2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization."
    Civilisation depends totally upon intelligence, it's irrelevant whether this is due to nature or nurture. Indeed, the nurtured intelligence is far more important - without it progress could not occur as there would be no way of transmitting new learning onto new generations (can we do this genetically!?!)

    "3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population. Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it's a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen."
    As the article rightly points out, you canna confuse correlation with causation. I could equally argue that, "the better off the population, the higher the level of civilisation".

    If cultural and material deprivation didn't occur, "intelligence" would rise as people wouldn't be actively hindered by their cultural background and social circumstances.

    4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children."
    Wha! We're evolving to become less intelligent, you say. Despite the massive technological advances of the past thirty years?

    5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate increase in the collective "misery quotient."
    See answer to points 3 and 4.

    Also, I'm not sure that misery is an absolute, rather it's relative. Like poverty, we will always yearn for things we can't quite reach (see status frustration) *isn't convinced of this argument, but hey-ho*

    And, as a brief aside..."
    Egalitarianism would be better described as a belief that all people should be given an equal chance, to make sure that can make the most of their [maybe] innate abilities

    Peacey
    IQ=92 (I think the convention for this thread should be the inclusion of your IQ, ready for the Eugenic screening.)
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I agree.

    SolInvincitus
    IQ= 145-164 (variation from test to test over past 7 years)
    PS: I think IQ is a bunch of c**p. I know people whose IQs are lower than mine, and who are still about a dozen times smarter than I am.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Good retort. The original article is hilarious.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    PS: I think IQ is a bunch of c**p. I know people whose IQs are lower than mine, and who are still about a dozen times smarter than I am.
    You speak much sense. People read too much into IQ. Mine is 120 I believe
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Glad it got you thinking - that's why I called it food for thought! It's one of those subjects that'll never really go away (I imagine like religion) no matter what arguements are presented for and against.

    Personally I think overall we're probably slowing evolution (which we all agree is good?) with our current medical/social abilities.

    Andrew
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    well i have to mostly agree with the original poster - IQ something like 135...

    what's yours andy?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    You speak much sense. People read too much into IQ. Mine is 120 I believe
    Mine is 146
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peacey)
    4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children."
    Wha! We're evolving to become less intelligent, you say. Despite the massive technological advances of the past thirty years?
    Technological advances don't necessarily help the average man in the street to become more intelligent. We can all use a calculator but how good are we at using our brains to solve mathematical problems? We can all do a quick google search but how good are we at using a library for in depth research?

    Technonolgy has made us lazy, not intelligent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TKR)
    well i have to mostly agree with the original poster - IQ something like 135...

    what's yours andy?
    The last time I took one was when I was 17, it was via the internet so I doubt very much its reliabilty (and so will you, I got over 150). Can you link me to a test that is respected/popular (perhaps only with the patrons of this board) so I can take it?

    Andrew
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with IQ is that tests are inaccurate above around 140. I get between 180 and 200, but some tests will give you only 135 as the maximum, even when you get all the questions right.

    I do think the more stupid people are the ones having loads of kids. The intelligent people are busy doing something more interesting (and realise that kids are yuck).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Technological advances don't necessarily help the average man in the street to become more intelligent. We can all use a calculator but how good are we at using our brains to solve mathematical problems? We can all do a quick google search but how good are we at using a library for in depth research?

    Technonolgy has made us lazy, not intelligent.
    I think the point that Peacey was making is that the huge technological advances of recent years are evidence that our intelligence as a species is not declining, not that they are somehow increasing our intelligence.

    ZarathustraX
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarathustra)
    I think the point that Peacey was making is that the huge technological advances of recent years are evidence that our intelligence as a species is not declining, not that they are somehow increasing our intelligence.

    ZarathustraX
    It's hard to draw this conclusion - we might be better schooled these days but does that make us more "intelligent" as a whole? Or are the more intelligent people that will always exist in any day and age (the genuises) more able to flurish in these recent years of history than they would've been able to do if they'd been born eons ago?

    Andrew
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarathustra)
    I think the point that Peacey was making is that the huge technological advances of recent years are evidence that our intelligence as a species is not declining, not that they are somehow increasing our intelligence.

    ZarathustraX
    Except that such advances are by an intelligent minority, they may make them even as society as a whole becomes less intelligent--track records were broken last week by Americans even as Americans as a group are becoming more obese and less athletic.

    If group technological advances are indicative of group intelligence (as you suggest), perhaps IQ tests shouldn't be dismissed as predictors of intelligence as they correlate well with ability to solve new problems and the cognitive abilities necessary to contribute to advances in technology.

    Are group technological advances indicative of group intelligence?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peacey)
    "1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary. "
    This is far from proven; there's too much difficulty finding a culture-free definition of intelligence (never mind a culture-fair instrument to measure it!). Each of the studies brought in to support this position has been dismissed by mainstream psychometry - most notably, the twin studies were rubbished as the author (Cyril Burt) has been exposed as a fraud who fabricated lots of data.
    And the 'Minnesota twin' studies? The methodology seems flawless. I don't know much about psychology or stats but the MZ/DZ heredity comparisons seem as close to perfectly controlled as is possible.

    Studies are completed and published all the time which look in to intelligence and heritability, have any found that intelligence isn't substantially hereditary? I know that many studies suggest considerable heritability.

    Do different cultures see 'intelligence' differently? Or do all see it as an ability to solve problems, to think up new ideas, to understand new information? I'm pretty sure most cultures would accept that kind of definition as being broadly acceptable.

    Is it just western anthropologists and social psychologists who've come up with other definitions of intelligence over the last few decades? Why might that be? A political response to Jensenism?

    Do mainstream psychometrists all dismiss heredity in intelligence? The balance may be disputed but the idea that IQ is linked to intelligence and that IQ is substantially hereditary is part, at very least, of mainstream psychometry. Which way do the scales of evidence tip and what would convince you?

    [Burt is ancient and his supposed trickery is disputed, he wasn't even mentioned in the link.]

    Less than Lauren...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    IQ - several values 138,139,152,160 - IQ tests are stupid and a hopelessly flawed way to test intelligence as shown by this spread of 22. Intelligence comprises a variety of other factors like social skills, initiative and leadership, and these simply can't be assesed. There are some some super-intelligent people who are deeply unhappy because of there apparent failure to make friends. And anyway, if eugenics were to take place, it would be the result of a massive swing towards the nationalistic right, and we all know that no-one is happy living under a far-right government.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Technological advances don't necessarily help the average man in the street to become more intelligent. We can all use a calculator but how good are we at using our brains to solve mathematical problems? We can all do a quick google search but how good are we at using a library for in depth research?

    Technonolgy has made us lazy, not intelligent.
    I think the reference was to the scientists and technologist that have pioneered these technologies. Over the last century scientific progress has been unparalleled - quite at odds with a statement that asserts we are less intelligent.

    I watched a programme on BBC last night about the concentration and death camps set up during the second reich in what is modern-day Namibia. This is where these ideas on genetics came about and they have changed very little since. It is amazing that the same old arguments are being used by people like andrew despite the fact that they were thought up before DNA was even elucidated and well before the modern science of genetic technology was founded.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    I think the reference was to the scientists and technologist that have pioneered these technologies. Over the last century scientific progress has been unparalleled - quite at odds with a statement that asserts we are less intelligent.
    Have you read my post just before ArthurOlivers?

    It is amazing that the same old arguments are being used by people like andrew
    When have I used these views? I put it in my signature as food for thought as I expressed earlier in this thread.

    Andrew
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyukguy)
    I put it in my signature as food for thought as I expressed earlier in this thread.
    why even consider them as valid unless you have some sympathy with them, or a complete misunderstanding of modern genetics?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lauren)
    I do think the more stupid people are the ones having loads of kids. The intelligent people are busy doing something more interesting (and realise that kids are yuck).
    No they are realising that the demography is changing and trying to balance that out. Is there going to be a state pension for us when we reach retirement.

    No
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 16, 2005
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.