Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #493856 > unrolled thread

OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing.

Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written

Contents

  OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-20 10:25 -0700
    Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 14:40 -0700
      Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-20 21:55 +0000
        Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-06-20 15:28 -0700
        Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 15:54 -0700
      Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> - 2018-06-20 15:21 -0700
        Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-06-20 15:29 -0700
          Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 15:57 -0700
          Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-20 22:34 +0000
        Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) - 2018-06-20 22:34 +0000
          Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. peterwezeman@hotmail.com - 2018-06-21 00:48 -0700
            Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 06:11 -0700
              Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 10:40 -0700
                Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 21:10 -0500
                  Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-23 03:38 +0000
                  Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 05:37 +0000
                    Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 22:32 -0500
                      Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 07:34 +0000
                        Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 10:03 -0500
                          Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 19:12 +0000
                    Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. mcdowell_ag@sky.com - 2018-06-25 21:41 -0700
                      Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 08:32 -0700
                        Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-06-26 10:49 -0700
                          Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 11:06 -0700
                            Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-06-26 12:19 -0700
                              Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 12:44 -0700
                      Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> - 2018-06-26 10:06 -0700
              Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-26 00:19 -0600
                Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. hamish.laws@gmail.com - 2018-06-26 00:04 -0700
                  Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-26 14:42 +0000
                    Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-26 10:46 -0600
                      Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 10:07 -0700
                Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 10:50 -0400
                  Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-27 08:30 -0600
                Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-06-26 08:17 -0700
        Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-20 22:29 +0000
          Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 16:00 -0700
            Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> - 2018-06-20 16:30 -0700
              Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 16:53 -0700
        Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 15:56 -0700
          Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. mcdowell_ag@sky.com - 2018-06-20 21:22 -0700
            Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-06-21 14:53 -0700
            Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 10:38 -0700
        Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-06-21 13:12 -0700
          Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-21 20:43 +0000
            Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-06-21 14:39 -0700
              Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-06-21 14:59 -0700
                Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> - 2018-06-21 18:28 -0700
                  Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-22 03:53 +0000
                    Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-26 00:25 -0600
                      Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-26 14:49 +0000
                        Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-27 08:32 -0600
                  Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Juho Julkunen <giaotanj@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-22 14:23 +0300
                    Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-06-22 07:49 -0700
                      Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> - 2018-06-22 09:11 -0700
                        Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-22 16:43 +0000
                          Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) - 2018-06-22 17:13 +0000
                          Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-26 00:28 -0600
                    Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> - 2018-06-23 10:50 +0100
                      Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-06-23 13:34 +0000
                        Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-06-23 07:13 -0700
                          Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-06-23 15:35 +0000
                            Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> - 2018-06-23 17:13 +0100
                              Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-06-24 16:27 +0000
                        Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-06-23 07:49 -0700
    Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Steve Dodds <sdodds@nova-optical.com> - 2018-06-20 16:42 -0600
    Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 18:01 -0500
      Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 16:16 -0700
    Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> - 2018-06-22 19:20 -0700
    Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. "artyw2@yahoo.com" <artyw2@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-24 09:40 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#493929

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 11:56:52 PM UTC+1, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote in
> news:6fbd9cec-bd1b-4c85-9403-0c5495a773f2@googlegroups.com: 
> 
> > On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
> > Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: 
> >> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an IQ
> >> test. 
> >> 
> > I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of your worth
> > as a person, or that declining scores are a sign of the end of
> > the world. 
> 
> Declining IQ test scores is a sign of nothing more than declining IQ 
> scores. There is no other meaning to it at all.
> > 
> > Having said that:
> > 
> > For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking people have
> > sought out other intelligent, healthy and good-looking people
> > with the goal of raising a family with perhaps five or ten
> > intelligent, healthy and good-looking kids. More recently, large
> > families have gone out of style and only the "less favoured" are
> > left to produce a significant number of children. Discuss
> > possible outcomes of this? 
> > 
> Discussion is impossible without first defining what you mean by 
> "intelligence." (If you can come up with one - and only one - that is 
> universally accepted, and has some objective meaning, you will be, 
> literally, the most brilliant researching in the history of the 
> field.)
> 
> -- 
> Terry Austin
> 
> Vacation photos from Iceland: 
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
> 
> "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
>     -- David Bilek
> 
> Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

For those that don't buy into the "it's just a number" story, Wikipedia has a reasonable explanation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#General_factor_(g) that describes how what IQ tests measured was designed to be a common factor that statistics showed was correlated to ability at a variety of school subjects (one of the first examples of what I suspect was Principal Components Analysis). So it should be no surprise that people who score well in IQ tests tend to do well at academic subjects in school.

I also note since IQ is inheritable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ it is measuring something we evolved and it would be very odd for us to evolve something which had no other purpose than passing tests only invented millennia after the ability evolved.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#493985

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 12:22:32 AM UTC-4, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:

> I also note since IQ is inheritable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ it is measuring something we evolved and it would be very odd for us to evolve something which had no other purpose than passing tests only invented millennia after the ability evolved.

What would a graph of the scores look like if the tests didn't get 
renormed periodically?

Average heights might seem to decline if one keeps redefining the metre 
or foot.

Kevin R

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494038

mcdowell_ag@sky.com wrote in
news:f3a0a27a-344b-4a0e-b673-d962ba00737b@googlegroups.com: 

> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 11:56:52 PM UTC+1, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: 
>> John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote in
>> news:6fbd9cec-bd1b-4c85-9403-0c5495a773f2@googlegroups.com: 
>> 
>> > On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>> > Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: 
>> >> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an
>> >> IQ test. 
>> >> 
>> > I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of your
>> > worth as a person, or that declining scores are a sign of the
>> > end of the world. 
>> 
>> Declining IQ test scores is a sign of nothing more than
>> declining IQ scores. There is no other meaning to it at all.
>> > 
>> > Having said that:
>> > 
>> > For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking people
>> > have sought out other intelligent, healthy and good-looking
>> > people with the goal of raising a family with perhaps five or
>> > ten intelligent, healthy and good-looking kids. More
>> > recently, large families have gone out of style and only the
>> > "less favoured" are left to produce a significant number of
>> > children. Discuss possible outcomes of this? 
>> > 
>> Discussion is impossible without first defining what you mean
>> by "intelligence." (If you can come up with one - and only one
>> - that is universally accepted, and has some objective meaning,
>> you will be, literally, the most brilliant researching in the
>> history of the field.)
>> 
>> -- 
>> Terry Austin
>> 
>> Vacation photos from Iceland: 
>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
>> 
>> "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
>>     -- David Bilek
>> 
>> Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
> 
> For those that don't buy into the "it's just a number" story,
> Wikipedia

Well, wikipedia, the popularity contest for factoids, where actual 
facts are not welcome.

Sure.

My poitn stands, unchallenged.

> has a reasonable explanation at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#General_facto
> r_(g) that describes how what IQ tests measured was designed to
> be a common factor that statistics showed was correlated to
> ability at a variety of school subjects (one of the first
> examples of what I suspect was Principal Components Analysis).
> So it should be no surprise that people who score well in IQ
> tests tend to do well at academic subjects in school. 
> 
> I also note since IQ is inheritable

It's not, by and large.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ it is measuring
> something we evolved and it would be very odd for us to evolve
> something which had no other purpose than passing tests only
> invented millennia after the ability evolved. 
> 
You are an idiot.

-- 
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland: 
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#493978

On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 23:21:34 UTC+1, John Halpenny  wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> > The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an IQ test.
> > 
> I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of your worth as a person, or that declining scores are a sign of the end of the world.
> 
> Having said that:
> 
> For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking people have sought out other intelligent, healthy and good-looking people with the goal of raising a family with perhaps five or ten intelligent, healthy and good-looking kids. More recently, large families have gone out of style and only the "less favoured" are left to produce a significant number of children. Discuss possible outcomes of this?
> 
> John

I don't think that ugly people are going to overwhelm 
the likes of you (I assume you count yourself amongst
the good-looking).  Well, unless they compensate 
with high sexual availability.  But wouldn't that 
require being smart?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#493982

In article <f7b25245-73be-4cd6-82c6-9b07e968a699@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 23:21:34 UTC+1, John Halpenny  wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> > The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an IQ test.
>> > 
>> I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of your worth as a
>person, or that declining scores are a sign of the end of the world.
>> 
>> Having said that:
>> 
>> For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking people have
>sought out other intelligent, healthy and good-looking people with the
>goal of raising a family with perhaps five or ten intelligent, healthy
>and good-looking kids. More recently, large families have gone out of
>style and only the "less favoured" are left to produce a significant
>number of children. Discuss possible outcomes of this?
>> 
>> John
>
>I don't think that ugly people are going to overwhelm 
>the likes of you (I assume you count yourself amongst
>the good-looking).  Well, unless they compensate 
>with high sexual availability.  But wouldn't that 
>require being smart?

Wait a minute.  "High sexual availability" is equated with "being
smart"???

Maybe, if you are male and equate "being smart" with "knowing
ninety-seven different ways of conning someone who doesn't want
to go to bed with you into doing so anyway."

If you are female, "being smart" equates to "examining all
possible mates for suitable characteristics", which include
"being able to support your kids into adulthood," which nowadays
equates to "reaching at least the age of eighteen, but preferably
finishing college and maybe graduate school."

Always assuming you don't live in a culture where your father can
trade you to another guy (whereupon you will have to go to bed
with his son and bear his grandchildren), in exchange for a cow
or something.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#493984

On Thursday, 21 June 2018 22:00:08 UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt  wrote:
> In article <f7b25245-73be-4cd6-82c6-9b07e968a699@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 23:21:34 UTC+1, John Halpenny  wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> >Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> > The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an IQ test.
> >> > 
> >> I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of your worth as a
> >person, or that declining scores are a sign of the end of the world.
> >> 
> >> Having said that:
> >> 
> >> For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking people have
> >sought out other intelligent, healthy and good-looking people with the
> >goal of raising a family with perhaps five or ten intelligent, healthy
> >and good-looking kids. More recently, large families have gone out of
> >style and only the "less favoured" are left to produce a significant
> >number of children. Discuss possible outcomes of this?
> >> 
> >> John
> >
> >I don't think that ugly people are going to overwhelm 
> >the likes of you (I assume you count yourself amongst
> >the good-looking).  Well, unless they compensate 
> >with high sexual availability.  But wouldn't that 
> >require being smart?
> 
> Wait a minute.  "High sexual availability" is equated with "being
> smart"???
> 
> Maybe, if you are male and equate "being smart" with "knowing
> ninety-seven different ways of conning someone who doesn't want
> to go to bed with you into doing so anyway."
> 
> If you are female, "being smart" equates to "examining all
> possible mates for suitable characteristics", which include
> "being able to support your kids into adulthood," which nowadays
> equates to "reaching at least the age of eighteen, but preferably
> finishing college and maybe graduate school."
> 
> Always assuming you don't live in a culture where your father can
> trade you to another guy (whereupon you will have to go to bed
> with his son and bear his grandchildren), in exchange for a cow
> or something.

No no no.  I was responding to John Halpenny's concern 
that stupid ugly diseased people will out-breed fine 
specimens like you and me and he.  He is overlooking the 
fact that they won't find anyone to breed with, because 
everyone wants to breed, or specifically to copulate,
with the healthy, good-looking, and possibly intelligent 
people.  But those people don't want to copulate with
him.  Probably the stupid ugly diseased people also don't
want to, but whoever does may receive economic support
in return - for oneself as well as for offspring.

I meant to propose, but not seriously, that the inferiors
that John and I are speaking of would not achieve that
insight.  But in fact it is not really a mysterious matter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#493986

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:39:03 PM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 June 2018 22:00:08 UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt  wrote:
> > In article <f7b25245-73be-4cd6-82c6-9b07e968a699@googlegroups.com>,
> > Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
> > >On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 23:21:34 UTC+1, John Halpenny  wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> > >Kujisalimisha wrote:
> > >> > The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an IQ test.
> > >> > 
> > >> I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of your worth as a
> > >person, or that declining scores are a sign of the end of the world.
> > >> 
> > >> Having said that:
> > >> 
> > >> For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking people have
> > >sought out other intelligent, healthy and good-looking people with the
> > >goal of raising a family with perhaps five or ten intelligent, healthy
> > >and good-looking kids. More recently, large families have gone out of
> > >style and only the "less favoured" are left to produce a significant
> > >number of children. Discuss possible outcomes of this?
> > >> 
> > >> John
> > >
> > >I don't think that ugly people are going to overwhelm 
> > >the likes of you (I assume you count yourself amongst
> > >the good-looking).  Well, unless they compensate 
> > >with high sexual availability.  But wouldn't that 
> > >require being smart?
> > 
> > Wait a minute.  "High sexual availability" is equated with "being
> > smart"???
> > 
> > Maybe, if you are male and equate "being smart" with "knowing
> > ninety-seven different ways of conning someone who doesn't want
> > to go to bed with you into doing so anyway."
> > 
> > If you are female, "being smart" equates to "examining all
> > possible mates for suitable characteristics", which include
> > "being able to support your kids into adulthood," which nowadays
> > equates to "reaching at least the age of eighteen, but preferably
> > finishing college and maybe graduate school."
> > 
> > Always assuming you don't live in a culture where your father can
> > trade you to another guy (whereupon you will have to go to bed
> > with his son and bear his grandchildren), in exchange for a cow
> > or something.
> 
> No no no.  I was responding to John Halpenny's concern 
> that stupid ugly diseased people will out-breed fine 
> specimens like you and me and he.  He is overlooking the 
> fact that they won't find anyone to breed with, because 
> everyone wants to breed, or specifically to copulate,
> with the healthy, good-looking, and possibly intelligent 
> people.  But those people don't want to copulate with
> him.  Probably the stupid ugly diseased people also don't
> want to, but whoever does may receive economic support
> in return - for oneself as well as for offspring.
> 
> I meant to propose, but not seriously, that the inferiors
> that John and I are speaking of would not achieve that
> insight.  But in fact it is not really a mysterious matter.

With the advent of birth control technology, couldn't there
be a bias against early adapters and rigorous practitioners
of planned pregnancy to "underbreed" the less sophisticated,
who knock up/get knocked up by their partners and have children
they didn't plan on, and maybe more than the would have in a lifetime,
had they planned their breeding?

It's only one factor, and others, like frequency of abortion,
any bias towards higher infant or child mortality among these
self-same "reproductive dum-dums," etc., might well offset it.
The demographic transition model is built around the idea that
the more well-to-do are satisfied with fewer children who are
likelier to live than in past eras, to whose upbringing significant
resources can be dedicated, compared to turning out a lot of poor
kids, some of whom survive to care for Ma and Pa in old age.

Kevin R

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#493991

Birth control, modern medicine and expensive college have certainly changed the situation, but have they changed it enough?  If I have one child and all of the advantages of modern technology, and you have 10 kids and 5 of then die, your kids still outnumber  mine, and your grandchildren will outnumber mine by 25 to 1. Since I can't say that this is a good or bad thing, perhaps we shouldn't even talk about it.

It all boils down to Darwin's Law, which is, to paraphrase only slightly, "Whoever raises the most babies wins."

John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#493995

In article <6fbe18e9-da5a-4b66-9f17-f0fe95e34744@googlegroups.com>,
John Halpenny  <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote:
>Birth control, modern medicine and expensive college have certainly
>changed the situation, but have they changed it enough?  If I have one
>child and all of the advantages of modern technology, and you have 10
>kids and 5 of then die, your kids still outnumber  mine, and your
>grandchildren will outnumber mine by 25 to 1. Since I can't say that
>this is a good or bad thing, perhaps we shouldn't even talk about it.
>
>It all boils down to Darwin's Law, which is, to paraphrase only
>slightly, "Whoever raises the most babies wins."

Actuall, it's whoever has the most *grandchildren* lives.  

Take into account that if you have two children and they both live
to grow up and have children of their own, you're doing better than
if you have nine children and eight of them die young and the
ninth has one child before she dies.

This is why humans are so philoprogenitive.  We were an endangered
species for a long time.  The lion on the leopard and the hyena
and the Dinofelis and the plasmodium of malaria all wanted to have
us for lunch, and frequently did.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494218

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>John Halpenny  <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote:

>>It all boils down to Darwin's Law, which is, to paraphrase only
>>slightly, "Whoever raises the most babies wins."
>
>Actuall, it's whoever has the most *grandchildren* lives.  

I have no children, but have four nieces and nephews.  At 0.25
relatedness (assuming that everyone was faithful) times four, that
means that my Darwin Number would be 1.0 = breakeven.

Unless you insist on that "grandkids" level.  Two of them don't have
kids and the other two are still too young to have had kids yet.
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494226

In article <fpe4jfF2jhU1@mid.individual.net>,
Greg Goss  <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>John Halpenny  <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>>It all boils down to Darwin's Law, which is, to paraphrase only
>>>slightly, "Whoever raises the most babies wins."
>>
>>Actuall, it's whoever has the most *grandchildren* lives.  

True.  And one of the things that hominins developed over time
was longer lifespans so that an individual too old to reproduce
can still help take care of the grandchildren.

I'm doing that now, in fact; Hal and I live with our daughter and
son-in-law and are daycare for our grandson.  (We have another
grandson, but he lives in New York and we've yet to meet him.)

>I have no children, but have four nieces and nephews.  At 0.25
>relatedness (assuming that everyone was faithful) times four, that
>means that my Darwin Number would be 1.0 = breakeven.
>
>Unless you insist on that "grandkids" level.  Two of them don't have
>kids and the other two are still too young to have had kids yet.

You never know; the younger ones might make you a great-uncle
yet.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494262

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>Greg Goss  <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:

>>I have no children, but have four nieces and nephews.  At 0.25
>>relatedness (assuming that everyone was faithful) times four, that
>>means that my Darwin Number would be 1.0 = breakeven.
>>
>>Unless you insist on that "grandkids" level.  Two of them don't have
>>kids and the other two are still too young to have had kids yet.
>
>You never know; the younger ones might make you a great-uncle
>yet.

The eldest of the four is getting married in a month and a half.  That
will likely change the odds dramatically.
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494003

In article <6fbe18e9-da5a-4b66-9f17-f0fe95e34744@googlegroups.com>, 
j.halpenny@rogers.com says...
> 
> Birth control, modern medicine and expensive college have certainly changed the situation, but have they changed it enough?  If I have one child and all of the advantages of modern technology, and you have 10 kids and 5 of then die, your kids still outnumber  mine, and your grandchildren will outnumber mine by 25 to 1. Since I can't say that this is a good or bad thing, perhaps we shouldn't even talk about it.

Three things:

1) Genetics of intelligence, which still lacks a satisfactory 
definition, are complicated.

2) Smart parents tend to have less smart children, and dumb parents 
tend to have smarter children, because reversion to the mean is a 
thing.

3) The elite have worried about the unchecked procreation of the 
unwashed masses dumbing the population down for at least two centuries, 
quite possibly a lot longer.

-- 
Juho Julkunen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494015

On 6/22/2018 4:23 AM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
> In article <6fbe18e9-da5a-4b66-9f17-f0fe95e34744@googlegroups.com>,
> j.halpenny@rogers.com says...
>>
>> Birth control, modern medicine and expensive college have certainly changed the situation, but have they changed it enough?  If I have one child and all of the advantages of modern technology, and you have 10 kids and 5 of then die, your kids still outnumber  mine, and your grandchildren will outnumber mine by 25 to 1. Since I can't say that this is a good or bad thing, perhaps we shouldn't even talk about it.
> 
> Three things:
> 
> 1) Genetics of intelligence, which still lacks a satisfactory
> definition, are complicated.
> 
> 2) Smart parents tend to have less smart children, and dumb parents
> tend to have smarter children, because reversion to the mean is a
> thing.
> 
> 3) The elite have worried about the unchecked procreation of the
> unwashed masses dumbing the population down for at least two centuries,
> quite possibly a lot longer.
> 
4) People have been complaining about the decline and imminent fall of 
civilization since Sumer was founded.

-- 
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation 
instinct are running screaming.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494023

 > 
> 4) People have been complaining about the decline and imminent fall of 
> civilization since Sumer was founded.
> 
Almost all of the civilizations since Sumer have declined and fallen. New ones have taken over, and then rewritten the history books to explain why they were so much better than the old ones.

John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494026

In article <2a1c43c1-a012-47ce-b65d-3613cad7d0d7@googlegroups.com>,
John Halpenny  <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote:
> > 
>> 4) People have been complaining about the decline and imminent fall of 
>> civilization since Sumer was founded.
>> 
>Almost all of the civilizations since Sumer have declined and fallen.
>New ones have taken over, and then rewritten the history books to
>explain why they were so much better than the old ones.

Just as people have written books to explain why we mammals are
so much better than the dinosaurs were.

(Because back on the day of the asteroid, we were tiny furry
things that didn't need as much food to keep us alive.)

C. S. Lewis says (I think in _Suprised by Joy_), there have been
civilized people in all eras.  And they have always been
surrounded by barbarians.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494029

In article <pAqH4I.1C4q@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <2a1c43c1-a012-47ce-b65d-3613cad7d0d7@googlegroups.com>,
>John Halpenny  <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote:
>> > 
>>> 4) People have been complaining about the decline and imminent fall of 
>>> civilization since Sumer was founded.
>>> 
>>Almost all of the civilizations since Sumer have declined and fallen.
>>New ones have taken over, and then rewritten the history books to
>>explain why they were so much better than the old ones.
>
>Just as people have written books to explain why we mammals are
>so much better than the dinosaurs were.
>
>(Because back on the day of the asteroid, we were tiny furry
>things that didn't need as much food to keep us alive.)
>
Having got pushed aside after the End Permian and the Carnian Pluvial Event's
Big Rain. 

-- 
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494219

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

>In article <2a1c43c1-a012-47ce-b65d-3613cad7d0d7@googlegroups.com>,
>John Halpenny  <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote:
>> > 
>>> 4) People have been complaining about the decline and imminent fall of 
>>> civilization since Sumer was founded.
>>> 
>>Almost all of the civilizations since Sumer have declined and fallen.
>>New ones have taken over, and then rewritten the history books to
>>explain why they were so much better than the old ones.
>
>Just as people have written books to explain why we mammals are
>so much better than the dinosaurs were.
>
>(Because back on the day of the asteroid, we were tiny furry
>things that didn't need as much food to keep us alive.)

I've seen claims that re-entering crud from the splash set pretty much
the entire planet's sky on "bake".  So the only things that survived
were ones that were in burrows or under water.  AND were small enough
to live on restricted food supplies.

(And that was a minor extinction to the one a quarter billion years
ago.)
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494111

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 14:23:21 +0300, Juho Julkunen <giaotanj@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <6fbe18e9-da5a-4b66-9f17-f0fe95e34744@googlegroups.com>, 
>j.halpenny@rogers.com says...
>> 
>> Birth control, modern medicine and expensive college have certainly changed the situation, but have they changed it enough?  If I have one child and all of the advantages of modern technology, and you have 10 kids and 5 of then die, your kids still outnumber  mine, and your grandchildren will outnumber mine by 25 to 1. Since I can't say that this is a good or bad thing, perhaps we shouldn't even talk about it.
>
>Three things:
>
>1) Genetics of intelligence, which still lacks a satisfactory 
>definition, are complicated.
>
>2) Smart parents tend to have less smart children, and dumb parents 
>tend to have smarter children, because reversion to the mean is a 
>thing.
>
>3) The elite have worried about the unchecked procreation of the 
>unwashed masses dumbing the population down for at least two centuries, 
>quite possibly a lot longer.

The elite are not necessarily any brighter than the unwashed masses,
either. Luckier, perhaps, but outside of Known Space that isn't a
heritable characteristic (although trust funds can be).

	Cheers - Jaimie
-- 
Okay, it works now. Or at least it malfunctions in all the expected ways.
                                                     -- Mark Edwards, asr 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494113

Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 14:23:21 +0300, Juho Julkunen <giaotanj@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <6fbe18e9-da5a-4b66-9f17-f0fe95e34744@googlegroups.com>,
>>j.halpenny@rogers.com says...
>>>
>>> Birth control, modern medicine and expensive college have certainly
>>> changed the situation, but have they changed it enough?  If I have
>>> one child and all of the advantages of modern technology, and you
>>> have 10 kids and 5 of then die, your kids still outnumber  mine, and
>>> your grandchildren will outnumber mine by 25 to 1. Since I can't say
>>> that this is a good or bad thing, perhaps we shouldn't even talk
>>> about it.
>>
>>Three things:
>>
>>1) Genetics of intelligence, which still lacks a satisfactory
>>definition, are complicated.
>>
>>2) Smart parents tend to have less smart children, and dumb parents
>>tend to have smarter children, because reversion to the mean is a
>>thing.
>>
>>3) The elite have worried about the unchecked procreation of the
>>unwashed masses dumbing the population down for at least two centuries,
>>quite possibly a lot longer.
>
> The elite are not necessarily any brighter than the unwashed masses,
> either. Luckier, perhaps, but outside of Known Space that isn't a
> heritable characteristic (although trust funds can be).

Callidetic [1] genes may also play a role on Earth, where only males who
"get lucky" (so to speak) with the fairer sex are allowed to procreate.

Note.

1. "The Weapon Shops of Isher" (van Vogt) uses "callidetic" to describe
people with endemic, chronic, good luck. One of the things that's on my
back-burner is to figure out that word's etymology.
    It originally struck me as a combination of calli + detic. Calli
comes from the Greek word Kallos 'beauty,' which left the suffix detic
behind as an enigmatic part of the puzzle.
    This morning, a combination of callid + etic seems more plausible.
Although the callid prefix doesn't appear in my _Oxford Dictionary_, it 
does appear online [1]. It means "characterized by cunning or 
shrewdness; crafty." For our purposes, the suffix etic more-or-less 
means "outside of society" or "outsider." 
    Following this line-of-thought, callidetic means "crafty outsider." 
There's also a fly-in-the-ointment. The prefix comes from Latin while
the suffix comes from Greek. Does that sort of thing happen in the 
English language? 

Note.

1. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/callid

✍

Thank you,

-- 
Don

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written

csiph-web