Something troubling me

[BoardGuest808888]

1. It didn't drastically change overnight, but it did change. Why ? Because the way people live changes, the value by which people live change as well, and the environment where they lives changes too.

For ex : no matter how intelligent you are, if you live some 700 years ago when there was a plague like the Black Death, then you'll die. Unless you're lucky enough not to catch it, or somehow your immune system was resistant to such plague. Didn't really matter if your intelligent allowed you to flee from it or what. Even kings and lords died. If a gene is to be passed, it might not be an "intelligent gene" of the time, but rather a gene that allow you to be resistant to such plague.

In the aftermath, it was not about the intelligent gene or not, but the one most fit for the challenge of the time survived. Even it that meant the survivors were less intellectual than the previous generations.

Another, if Genghis Khan is intelligent in the way of warfare, then how far he'll go for successful breeding in today's term ? No that far, because for today's value, warfare isn't top rated as desirable kind of intelligent. So, anyone else who got the same kind of "intelligent" as the Khan today, might not be so successful as well. Their time has run out.

If someone like Mendell is highly intelligent, but was not recognized by the time he lives, would he less or more likely to have children ? If he is more likely, then that means it wouldn't depend on his intelligence. But if he is less likely, then what u said didn't happen ?

2. Of course, no one would admit they'd accept an orangutan to the univ . But what I'm trying to tell is, academic result might or might not be influenced solely by intelligence, which, by itself, though perhaps an important factor for univ admission, is not the sole factor as well. It all depends on the Faculty who in returns depends on current trends.

U can test it u'rself. Just look at the exam test for today's univ and have a look at the exam for the same univ from the past 5 years, past 15 years, or even past 25 years if u can. U'll see that there were so much difference by then.

3. Intelligent alone wouldn't be the single determining factor for education, just as education wouldn't be the single determining factor for heredity. When u want to pass u'r intelligent gene, u'll need to survive the immediate concern as well.

Say in a war zone, that means u'r survival is the most important. Education comes second. Now since Hawkings is really smart, let's guess, if in that condition, and what he wants is to pass his gene (to make all this heredity thing), which one become his priority; continue his PhD or start making babies ? And this is when his own survival can not be guaranteed at any given moment.

It goes same with women. Actually, it is more apparent for women since the pregnancy affects women most. Women have to bargain education for ability to pass their gene. However, those who choose the later are not necessarily less intelligent.

4. Wait, I've read that article too. Nowhere in there was mentioned about woman's intelligence. Was that u'r own assumption ?

6. It is relevant because that means the OP can not hold. the actual number might change because human population changes, but the ratio between more and less intelligence people remains same. And since the ratio of both sexes within the population is same as well, then neither sex would get any more or less intelligent than the other.

well if the OP holds then only women should be affected. Men should still get more and more intelligent, since intelligence improves survival chances (more likely to recognize deadly diseases early, earn more money, etc).

See ? now u're confusing intelligence and education again. What u give examples are relevant for education, not intelligence. Better education might give u ability to recognize disease better, earn more money, etc, but better intelligence might not. Unless such intelligence is back up with education. Regrettably, not everyone, regardless of sexes, are given the same chance for education, however intelligent he/she is.

On the other hand, those given better education, might not automatically become highly intelligent as well. Thus again, the OP can not hold.

[Banedon]

OK this seems to be the problem here:

See ? now u're confusing intelligence and education again.

The whole idea in the OP is that intelligence and education are correlated. Highly educated people are as a whole more intelligent. That means "highly educated" and "intelligent" are interchangeable. Well-educated people might be able to recognize diseases better, earn more money, etc, but so are intelligent people.

During the Black Death, nobody knew what was killing them, but the more intelligent ones figured out how it spread and they successfully reduced their chances of dying. They weren't right about how it spread - they thought it was spread by air, but it's actually spread by fleas mice etc - but they still took measures that improved their survival chances.

About #4, if highly educated women have fewer children (stated in the article), and if highly educated women are more intelligent (part of the OP - you could say it's an assumption I guess, but it looks really obvious) then intelligent women have fewer children.

@Pol - I can't understand what you're saying I'm afraid. Also, I say "if the thesis in the original post holds" ... if it does, then women becoming less and less intelligent becomes fact.

[BoardGuest808888]

Intelligence is about potential of a person, perhaps genetics, enhanced with better ways of raising kids.

Education is about chance given to such individual to develop such potential.

They are related only as much as if given by identical circumstances. However, the world is not a fair place. Not everyone is given a free-card for live. The gifted ones are the fortunate, but most of the rest are not so. Since it is against the majority, the OP idea if too specific to be generalized.

Let's say u have an identical twins, whose genetics would be similar thus their intelligence and potentials are same. One is raised in Copenhagen, Denmark while the other is raised in Tual (and I'll bet most of you didn't even know where it is). What are the chance both will get the same level of education ?

[ShadowLiberal]

You have a few things wrong in your argument, and you're missing a few data points about education and birth rate.

1) Wealth and Intelligence are two different things, but tend to be strongly correlated (these days). The smarter you are generally the wealthier you are because you can get a job that pays better.

2) It's actually wealth that determines how many children you're likely to have. The wealthier you are, the less likely you are to want children, or want as many children. The poorer you the more likely you are to want children or want lots of children. (somewhat this is self reinforcing though, because children are expensive, the childless couple can live a richer lifestyle then a couple with 5 kids that live next door even if both families earn the same amount of money a year)

3) Wealth of your parents is actually the big thing to determine intelligence and your future wealth, NOT genetics (though some of the best geniuses in history like Albert Einstein were geniuses because of 'birth defects' that made part of their brain abnormally large and much better at certain tasks, but for 99.9% of people, genetics don't matter).

4) The reason why wealth of the parents matters for how intelligent and how wealthy/successful you become in life is for several reasons.
4a) Wealthier parents tend to live in areas with better schools, and less crime/etc.
4b) Wealthier parents tend to put more time and effort into their children's education, and value education more (perhaps because their education helped them become as wealthy as they are).
4c) Wealthier parents can better afford to give their children extra help when they're falling behind, because of their wealth.

5) Another factor that's been reducing child birth is both men and women working, and the difficulty in raising kids when you depend on two pay checks to survive.

For women, there's also difficulty in advancing up the career ladder if they have kids, both from sexist attitudes about mothers in some places, and because child bearing years are also the best years to climb up the career ladder. Having children almost always involved months of time off to have the baby, and then possibly either quitting work or cutting back to work part time while raising the kid.

6) There's a number of other factors to, such as the increasing urbanization of the world rather than people living on farms where kids are free labor to tend the fields/animals, that are decreasing the birth rate world wide.

If you look at world wide population estimates, it's estimated that in another 3 or so decades the worldwide population will start to shrink for possibly the first time ever because of these and other factors.

[ThunderTitan]

About #4, if highly educated women have fewer children (stated in the article), and if highly educated women are more intelligent (part of the OP - you could say it's an assumption I guess, but it looks really obvious) then intelligent women have fewer children.

Ok, let me just say this again: YOU GET DNA FROM BOTH PARENTS, SO IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE CHILD IS MALE OR FEMALE, THERE WILL BE NO DIFFERENCE IN THE GENETIC PART OF IQ.

[Panda Tar]

Hum, wouldn't Knowledge and Intelligence be tools one of the other, exchanging of information from experience to analyze and react to accomplish a certain objective?

I mean Intelligence is a human word used to judge and conceit what they call Instinct applied over a certain Knowledge. One can be more suited to do something others don't and vice-verse. Now, can we say that a woman that can calculate any sort of equation by mind is more intelligent that a man that knows how to plant seeds, knowing that either of them don't know how to do what the other do? What's the point of their intelligence? If both of them are successful in their work and both of them survive due that, you could say both of them have the same intelligence for that said purpose.

I really don't think Intelligence can be quantifiable, because it's simply unique to each human. It would all depend on instinct in the end. Why do we do this and that? Because we need to survive. Society conditions, wealth, education are all matters and problems brought my humanity, not particularly absolute truth, but gathered knowledge that can change in time and show useless in future for in some people's views and more useful to other people.

Every day we see people who have nothing material, or society education who can do wonders with simple tools or actions. They keep their lives in balance and they are happy with it. How can one say that a wealthy man who has many industries and are good at what he do is more intelligent that a man that has no study but lives a fair life and, sometimes, is happier than that other person?

Intelligence is but a way to try do judge beings based on what we know and feel about a certain subject, disregarding what valor or feel those beings give to that same subject.

Gah, it's so hard to explain these thoughts in English.

[Banedon]

Let's say u have an identical twins, whose genetics would be similar thus their intelligence and potentials are same. One is raised in Copenhagen, Denmark while the other is raised in Tual (and I'll bet most of you didn't even know where it is). What are the chance both will get the same level of education ?

Maybe not very high, but so what? As long as there is some effect it's enough for selection to take place. The power of flight for example has evolved in birds, insects and some mammals independently. The ability to fly certainly did not just show up; the first animals that could "fly" could probably just leave the ground for only a few moments (or something like that). Yet those few moments were enough to provide an advantage, and eventually the power to fly evolved.

Why shouldn't the same apply here?

@ShadowLiberal - while the relation you raise between wealth and intelligence is interesting, if they are strongly correlated, then one can be used as a proxy for the other. So I don't see how that affects the argument; it just simply means that one can replace "intelligence" with "wealth" everywhere and vice versa.

Ok, let me just say this again: YOU GET DNA FROM BOTH PARENTS, SO IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE CHILD IS MALE OR FEMALE, THERE WILL BE NO DIFFERENCE IN THE GENETIC PART OF IQ.

When I asked a friend of mine she raised this objection too. However: it's possible for the sexes to exhibit different tendencies. As mentioned in the original post, many women have the innate desire to look pretty, but many men don't (at least not to nearly the same extent). So while one could have a highly intelligent father and a less intelligent mother, the genes for intelligence could become sex-selective such that only if the child is male will the child be highly intelligent, while if the child is female she will not be.

Every day we see people who have nothing material, or society education who can do wonders with simple tools or actions. They keep their lives in balance and they are happy with it. How can one say that a wealthy man who has many industries and are good at what he do is more intelligent that a man that has no study but lives a fair life and, sometimes, is happier than that other person?

Happiness should not matter. The question is whether the wealthy man with many industries will have more children than other men. If we assume that intelligent people are more likely to accumulate wealth (seems likely) then the wealthy man is more likely to be intelligent. If the wealthy man has more children, then intelligence would be selected for, while if he does not, then it would be selected against. All this is rather tangential though, since as in the OP the correlation is between education level of the woman and the number of children they have. If you've seen reports of a relation between the wealth of a man and the number of children they have, I'd like to see it.

[Panda Tar]

Happiness should not matter. The question is whether the wealthy man with many industries will have more children than other men. If we assume that intelligent people are more likely to accumulate wealth (seems likely) then the wealthy man is more likely to be intelligent. If the wealthy man has more children, then intelligence would be selected for, while if he does not, then it would be selected against. All this is rather tangential though, since as in the OP the correlation is between education level of the woman and the number of children they have. If you've seen reports of a relation between the wealth of a man and the number of children they have, I'd like to see it.

But perhaps that does matter in the end. What is the motivation of one becoming wealthy if it's not related to a feeling that makes one feel good? And that same feeling being tangible not through wealth when compared to another person with different motivations? In my point of view, intelligence is always unmeasurable by attaining things that cannot be carried over in a genetic sort of level, wealth being one of those things.

But, in the end, summarizing, why do you say that it's troubling you anyway?

[Banedon]

You don't find it troubling that if the original argument holds then women will get less and less intelligent (read: more and more stupid) while men will get more and more intelligent!?

[Panda Tar]

That's the summarized thing, then. I find it troubling if it's true. After reading most of the comments, I was hardly finding the point.

Whether wealthy (more intelligent by the sake of argumentation) have more sons and more intelligent women, less sons, I couldn't end up with a conclusion, given that the result should be more intelligent children, not specifically men nor women, if we are not counting the adulthood of that generation. If intelligent men do have more children, but his children grow up to become less intelligent adults (as if labeling them women), I cannot conclude anything but the complete fail of one's objective as a intelligent being. It's really strange trying to read things this way.

I think it's troubling if it was true, but I'm not one that finds true in that statement or understands it in that way to agree. It also can be due my limitations in fully understanding English written texts.

[ywhtptgtfo]

Mods feel free to close if it's too controversial.

Nah, I think you've overtly simplified things.

[ThunderTitan]

So while one could have a highly intelligent father and a less intelligent mother, the genes for intelligence could become sex-selective such that only if the child is male will the child be highly intelligent, while if the child is female she will not be.

And pigs could develop genes for wings and start flying...

The differences between male and female in humans are down to X and Y chromosomes and a bunch of hormones... the only way for it to be like you said is if our DNA does a major overhaul of itself and put all intelligent genes in those 2 chromosomes i think we're gonna be fine.

Or maybe some hormonal changes that impair female brain development... but that even more unlikely.

many women have the innate desire to look pretty, but many men don't (at least not to nearly the same extent).

Yeah, say hi to social conditioning...

[Banedon]

Turns out I'm not the only person who's worried about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility ... telligence

Nobel Prize–winning physicist William Shockley controversially argued from the mid-1960s through the 1980s that "the future of the population was threatened because people with low IQs had more children than those with high IQs."

Nobody seems to have drawn a male / female distinction, though.

[ThunderTitan]

Nobody seems to have drawn a male / female distinction, though.

That's because females are as much their father as men are, and there's no Y chromosome connection to intelligence.

....

Also, being a physicist does not qualify one to make prediction about population growth and IQ (esp since smart people having less kids has always been a thing).

[Banedon]

Saw this recently and the first thing I thought about was this thread: http://www.psychology-spot.com/2016/03/ ... ce-is.html

If intelligence is mostly inherited from the mother, we're all in even more trouble since the effect of this selection bias will be magnified!

[ThunderTitan]

Am i the only one that hopes Banedon has some sort of mild autism?

Because seriously, this thread...

[Pol]

@TT
I'm close to classify your note as derailing and honestly, if Banden will object against I'm going to remove it.

@TT & Banedon
Purely mathematicaly speaking Banedon is right with his fears. Perhaps it may surprise you but many sociologist were asking the same question. Luckilly some intelligence is ihnerited, some gained by your own experience, some learned from others. So, there's no effect of "one" source.

And as usually any of these sources can be wrong, naturally if one is wrong you can safely assume it from the remaining two and change it. The same with two. The huge problem arise if all three experinces are poisoned, then is likely that you will be blind all your life.

There's no one definition (kind) of intelligence, so I really wouldn't be afraid if you are getting it (which ones?) from mother or from father. But it's very interesting and never ending topic of discussion.

And important for life itself. Evolution solves that via sex, society, friends, environments, experience, learning.. simply, with everything what touches you. Even the effect of "Butterfly wings" is in. And nature is full of examples. Also human stories, tales - are all these dealing with these basic life questions.

What I find strange is, that far less people, pursue this knowledge. On the other hand, knowledge gained from internet, can be pretty derailing source as well. You just must get to know yourself.