Don’t know why Lausten has pussied out. I hate when someone does that. For anyone interested, this is truncated from the link I posted on intelligence:
Researchers have conducted many studies to look for genes that influence intelligence. Many of these studies have focused on similarities and differences in IQ within families, particularly looking at adopted children and twins. These studies suggest that genetic factors underlie about 50 percent of the difference in intelligence among individuals.
more recent findings:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523083324.htm
Intelligence is one of the most investigated traits in humans and higher intelligence is associated with important economic and health-related life outcomes. Despite high heritability estimates of 45% in childhood and 80% in adulthood, only a handful of genes had previously been associated with intelligence and for most of these genes the findings were not reliable. The study, published in the journal Nature Genetics, uncovered 52 genes for intelligence, of which 40 were completely new discoveries. Most of these genes are predominantly expressed in brain tissue.
Re: Religion and secular humanism - the books I linked to explain that religious belief is evolutionarily adaptive (that's why most humans are religious) while more recent things like humanism, liberalism, science (all come from the same basic source) are at odds with human nature. This doesn't mean they worthless, but that they won't replace religion anytime soon - if ever.
You answered your own question by using a word from junior high school.
From the start, this thread mixed intelligence with religious and made assumptions about hereditary of intelligence. Since “nature vs nurture” is one of the most commonly known among the unsettled debates of the world, I didn’t think I needed to supply any links to make that statement. Beltane considered he had some “cold hard facts” however. Making claims like:
the more primitive have what it takes to survive, and the smart don’t.
it’s the only way evolution could work.
humanism is as escapist as religion
To support these unfounded claims, he linked to two books that are about how religion comes “natural”. This is a different topic. The point of science is to disrupt our natural tendency of confirmation bias. This gives us an advantage in determining choices for our future, instead of heading for a cliff like lemmings. It’s a tool that can be used by anyone with average intelligence. So, the links were useless.
Then he repeated his claim by linking to a study that, in the summary says, " Other studies have examined variations across the entire genomes of many people (an approach called genome-wide association studies or GWAS) to determine whether any specific areas of the genome are associated with IQ. These studies have not conclusively identified any genes that underlie differences in intelligence. It is likely that a large number of genes are involved, each of which makes only a small contribution to a person’s intelligence."
The best numbers he has are the “high estimates” that say genetics involve up to 80%. An estimate is a not theory and is not supported by enough evidence to call it a fact. He even includes “not reliable” in his quote. Points for honesty.
Learn to read data and apply it, maybe we can rise above the name calling.
Some perspective: The cold hard fact is the more primitive have what it takes to survive, and the smart don't. As rationalists who know science is the best way to understand how life works, we shouldn't be surprised that evolution would work that way. It's the only way it could work!
I think I might have missed a step here, because this sounds contradictory. You admit that science (or rationality) is the best way to understand how life works, and yet you say that the primitive (or non-rational) have what it takes to survive over the smart (rational). I may have simply misunderstood what you're getting at.
It must be said the secular humanist (and by extension, liberal) view of the world is just as escapist as any religious view. It's a weak stand-in for something (religion) that functions 100 times better for the masses, and it reveals a different type of stupidity that's rampant in the highly intelligent.
That depends on what you mean by "functions". The "masses" believe in psychic powers because they prefer to think with their "gut" rather than their brains. They assume that emotion always trumps reason because that's the way they want it to be. The times it doesn't, they simply ignore.
Some perspective: The cold hard fact is the more primitive have what it takes to survive, and the smart don't. As rationalists who know science is the best way to understand how life works, we shouldn't be surprised that evolution would work that way. It's the only way it could work!
I think I might have missed a step here, because this sounds contradictory. You admit that science (or rationality) is the best way to understand how life works, and yet you say that the primitive (or non-rational) have what it takes to survive over the smart (rational). I may have simply misunderstood what you're getting at.
For clarity, I meant science is the best way to understand life in the "technical" sense, not in any other way.
Re: survival - The less intelligent are tougher, more sexual, more fertile, they have a lot more offspring than the high IQ. Scientists aren't sure why. They're life's winners in an evolutionary sense, which is really all that matters in the long run. Being very intelligent isn't that adaptable, although it seems to be to us. It's beneficial to succeeding in our society, but our society is just a small blip on the radar, and might be nearing the end of it's run.
It must be said the secular humanist (and by extension, liberal) view of the world is just as escapist as any religious view. It's a weak stand-in for something (religion) that functions 100 times better for the masses, and it reveals a different type of stupidity that's rampant in the highly intelligent.
That depends on what you mean by "functions". The "masses" believe in psychic powers because they prefer to think with their "gut" rather than their brains. They assume that emotion always trumps reason because that's the way they want it to be. The times it doesn't, they simply ignore.
Its not that they prefer to think with their gut, they do because that's program evolution has given them; all of humanity think with our gut and brain, - to varying degrees. We don't have any choice in it.
But it functions extremely well, which is why humanity is around today.
You answered your own question by using a word from junior high school.
From the start, this thread mixed intelligence with religious and made assumptions about hereditary of intelligence. Since "nature vs nurture" is one of the most commonly known among the unsettled debates of the world, I didn't think I needed to supply any links to make that statement. Beltane considered he had some "cold hard facts" however. Making claims like:
the more primitive have what it takes to survive, and the smart don't.
it's the only way evolution could work.
humanism is as escapist as religion
To support these unfounded claims, he linked to two books that are about how religion comes "natural". This is a different topic. The point of science is to disrupt our natural tendency of confirmation bias. This gives us an advantage in determining choices for our future, instead of heading for a cliff like lemmings. It's a tool that can be used by anyone with average intelligence. So, the links were useless.
Then he repeated his claim by linking to a study that, in the summary says, " Other studies have examined variations across the entire genomes of many people (an approach called genome-wide association studies or GWAS) to determine whether any specific areas of the genome are associated with IQ. These studies have not conclusively identified any genes that underlie differences in intelligence. It is likely that a large number of genes are involved, each of which makes only a small contribution to a person’s intelligence."
The best numbers he has are the "high estimates" that say genetics involve up to 80%. An estimate is a not theory and is not supported by enough evidence to call it a fact. He even includes "not reliable" in his quote. Points for honesty.
Learn to read data and apply it, maybe we can rise above the name calling.
Fair enough about the research not being totally, 100% conclusive. Research usually isn't.
However since it does point in that direction, let's say you are probably wrong about intelligence not being hereditary.
Fair enough about the research not being totally, 100% conclusive. Research usually isn't.
However since it does point in that direction, let's say you are probably wrong about intelligence not being hereditary.
Since we are just arbitrarily saying what's true or not, let's say you're wrong instead. Great. Glad we had this talk.
Fair enough about the research not being totally, 100% conclusive. Research usually isn't.
However since it does point in that direction, let's say you are probably wrong about intelligence not being hereditary.
Since we are just arbitrarily saying what's true or not, let's say you're wrong instead. Great. Glad we had this talk.You can say that but most people will disagree with you. Scientists don't report their work unless they think they're are making progress.
I could post dozens of other studies showing that there seems to big genetic component to intelligence, but it's pointless. Your humanism makes afraid of inequality and you think anyone can become like you with the right education.
The studies are easy to find online if anyone is interested.
Fair enough about the research not being totally, 100% conclusive. Research usually isn't.
However since it does point in that direction, let's say you are probably wrong about intelligence not being hereditary.
Since we are just arbitrarily saying what's true or not, let's say you're wrong instead. Great. Glad we had this talk.You can say that but most people will disagree with you. Scientists don't report their work unless they think they're are making progress.
I could post dozens of other studies showing that there seems to big genetic component to intelligence, but it's pointless. Your humanism makes afraid of inequality and you think anyone can become like you with the right education.
The studies are easy to find online if anyone is interested.
Of course you can, I can find studies that say all sorts of things. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-intelligence-hereditary/ But you have to understand what you are reading. This thread didn't start with that specific claim and when I asked for evidence from you, it was not what you were saying. If you want to discuss things, I'm glad to do it. If you want to make blanket statements and insult people, go somewhere else.
Forgot to add this basic rule:
Dumb people have dumb kids
Average people have average kids
High IQ people don't have kids
Not true. Most geniuses have kids and most are not geniuses. True genius is a rare anomaly and is just as likely
to appear in families if average intelligence as in families if high IQs. In addition, high IQ is a matter of opinion, easily manipulated. Most people who claim to have high IQs don't. They are quite average but tend to be supercilious.
Have you ever heard iof regression toward the mean?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
For clarity, I meant science is the best way to understand life in the "technical" sense, not in any other way.
Re: survival - The less intelligent are tougher, more sexual, more fertile, they have a lot more offspring than the high IQ. Scientists aren't sure why. They're life's winners in an evolutionary sense, which is really all that matters in the long run. Being very intelligent isn't that adaptable, although it seems to be to us. It's beneficial to succeeding in our society, but our society is just a small blip on the radar, and might be nearing the end of it's run.
It seems to me that you're drawing a line between "science" and "intelligence". I was thinking of "science" in the crudest sense, i.e., what works. Imagine a "stupid" primitive wandering around, eating every plant he can get his hands on. Eventually he eats a poisonous one and keels over dead. The other members of his tribe notice this and don't eat the same plant, thus displaying a crude form of science. But the more primitive tribe on the other side of the hill prefers not to learn from their mistakes and keep eating every plant they come across. But I wouldn't call them "winners in an evolutionary sense". It might be that the two of us are merely seizing upon different examples.
Its not that they prefer to think with their gut, they do because that's program evolution has given them; all of humanity think with our gut and brain, - to varying degrees. We don't have any choice in it.
But it functions extremely well, which is why humanity is around today.
I think that they DO prefer it that way. Thinking is hard. If all you had to do was listen to your "gut", no worries. A friend of mine was once trying to talk me into believing in psychics. "Haven't you ever had a premonition come true?" she asked. I answered, "No. Never." I have premonitions all the time, both good ones and bad ones, but not once in my entire life have I ever had one 'come true'. When both good and bad things happen to me, they come completely by surprise, which is why I have learned to completely ignore premonitions.
I will not argue that it's not functional -- in the sense that the vast majority of people still think with their "guts" and it doesn't seem to do them any harm in the long run.
Forgot to add this basic rule:
Dumb people have dumb kids
Average people have average kids
High IQ people don't have kids
Not true. Most geniuses have kids and most are not geniuses. True genius is a rare anomaly and is just as likely
to appear in families if average intelligence as in families if high IQs. In addition, high IQ is a matter of opinion, easily manipulated. Most people who claim to have high IQs don't. They are quite average but tend to be supercilious.
Have you ever heard iof regression toward the mean?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
Not only that, IQ is subjective- for example, one can take an IQ test in France, move to the States or Great Britain or wherever, learn the language well, yet score lower on an IQ test in that country. At the same time, one can have a good night's sleep, eat a good breakfast, etc and score very well on an IQ test, but come in to take the test another day, not sleep well, skip breakfast and score lower. That said, parents can have an above average IQ and have a gifted child, while the other child, not be gifted, but average IQ, yet score exceptionally high or even gifted in physical abilities or artistic ability- which is another form of intelligence (forgot the name of the psychologist who came up with these forms of IQ).
Re: survival - The less intelligent are tougher, more sexual, more fertile, they have a lot more offspring than the high IQ. Scientists aren’t sure why.
This quote from Beltane cracked me up. Who says, "scientists aren't sure why"? By what authority? How did you determine this? What do you mean? Why ask the question, what is it they have studied or not studied? I literally put these words into google and got more informed on this topic in 5 minutes than I have during this entire thread. An inquiry forum is much more fun if people are inquiring about things, then reporting to the rest of us what they found and then open up discussion.
http://www.psypost.org/2015/06/the-less-intelligent-are-more-fertile-so-why-arent-humans-becoming-dumber-over-time-35026
http://www.livescience.com/8779-fertile-women-manly-men.html
This one is here for humor only
http://naturalsociety.com/leading-geneticist-human-intelligence-slowly-declining/
https://www.hedweb.com/reproductive-revolution/index.html
Forgot to add this basic rule:
Dumb people have dumb kids
Average people have average kids
High IQ people don't have kids
Not true. Most geniuses have kids and most are not geniuses. True genius is a rare anomaly and is just as likely
to appear in families if average intelligence as in families if high IQs. In addition, high IQ is a matter of opinion, easily manipulated. Most people who claim to have high IQs don't. They are quite average but tend to be supercilious.
Have you ever heard iof regression toward the mean?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_meanWell genius is different from high IQ. Genius means an unusual brilliance or ability, not an all around high functioning cognitive ability, whereas high IQ means the professional class - engineers, doctors, scientists, most lawyers - these are the people needed for a technical society to exist.
High IQ isn't really a matter of opinion, it can be tested reliably and its evident in those individuals' life and work. Dumb people can lie about their IQ but no one believes them except maybe for the reallydumb. Average IQ people can lie about their smarts to the less intelligent, but not to the above average IQ crowd.
Lastly, yes I'm familiar with RTTM, but it doesn't cancel out the cognitive differences in this society.
Maybe the data are telling us that we need to reevaluate intelligence in our ranking of survival fitness traits. Jared Diamond in Guns Germs and Steel opined that New Guinea natives seemed smarter than his students - although he didn’t administer IQ tests to prove it.
Survival traits also change as ecological niches change. Again, Diamond suggested that “civilized” humans specialize, often into mundane tasks. Both lessen the need for wide-ranging intellectual processes.
There also seems to be a confusion between intelligence and handling information. New information is evolving at a high rate. It takes more time to acquire and process more information,
Not necessarily intelligence.
Maybe the data are telling us that we need to reevaluate intelligence in our ranking of survival fitness traits. Jared Diamond in Guns Germs and Steel opined that New Guinea natives seemed smarter than his students - although he didn't administer IQ tests to prove it.
Diamond probably added that just-so hypothesis to the book as a form of politically correct penance.
Survival traits also change as ecological niches change. Again, Diamond suggested that "civilized" humans specialize, often into mundane tasks. Both lessen the need for wide-ranging intellectual processes.
There also seems to be a confusion between intelligence and handling information. New information is evolving at a high rate. It takes more time to acquire and process more information,
Not necessarily intelligence.
Intelligence must play a big part in ability to handle information.
The result will be a rise, rather than a fall, in religion. An age of superstition rather than reason
There are at least two grounds upon this might be challenged.
1) When it comes to ideological assertions about the ultimate nature of reality (the scope of God proposals) there's really no basis upon which to declare atheism any more rational than theism. Both theism and atheism rest upon the assumption that we are in a position to come to reasonable theories or conclusions on matters of such ENORMOUS scale, which seems to be a form of fantasy whatever theories or conclusions one might be inclined towards. Christian theists often pose themselves as the "saved people" while atheist ideologues pose themselves as the "smart people". These poses aren't reason, but rather just ego/social competition agendas built of emotion.
2) If we are concerned about a coming dark age, that is far more likely to be caused by reason/science than by religion. This thread explains why:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19373/P15/