The Last Millennium Thread [Archive]

Millennium

3rd June 2003, 01:04

Obviously if you enjoy my opinions you can keep this thread alive and I will continue posting. However many people have voiced their unhappiness with my presence, and I have no intention of offending them any more than I have patience for dealing with their insults.

Drake, since you have made repeated efforts to solicit my attention, and are doing so in a reasonable fashion, I can't help but give you an answer. I'm sorry if my refusal to read your posts up to this point has upset you.

I am interested in knowing exactly where you stand, Mark. By this I mean: What do you advocate?

I advocate the spread of Millennium in order to achieve a better future. By this I mean that I believe that the more people who apply the tenets of the Method (Reason, Objectivity, and Self Doubt) and the Nation (responsible procreation towards a eugenic future) the better the world will be.

You seem to be a racialist, I already have gathered that much

I'm honestly not sure what "racialist" means. My dictionary gives the same meaning for "racist." I believe that ethnic differences are real, that they are meaningful, and that they are partically genetic. As I have said elsewhere, I don't believe that there is any one ethnicity which can claim superiority. I do have a certain silly fondness for the "white race," even with all its faults and foibles, but I am not interested in promoting whites at the expense of anyone else, and respect the desire of every living person to identify with and advance his own group, provided that he does not does not do so at the expense of any other group. Specifically with regards to eugenics, I would like to see members of all ethnicities working together so that none would be left behind.

but I'm not exactly sure what you support socially and economically.

I am politically neutral, in the right/left sense. I see tradeoffs to all economic and social ideas. More laws means more security, but less freedoms. More social programs means less social disparity, but less wealth all around. Eugenics is different from all of those things in that there is no tradeoff. Regardless of my personal biases (and I used to be a libertarian) I can appreciate that what works is simply what works. I don't think that any political, social, religious, or economic policies can ever affect genuine improvement unless they make use of eugenics or push for the development of science. If it makes it easier for you to have a name for this, you could call me a "progressive."

So what do you want? What would your 'ideal world' consist of?

I can't tell you what my ideal world would consist of. I just want everyone to be able to life a happy, meaningful life. Since everyone wants something different, it would be arrogant to impose my own vision on anyone else. What I do want for everyone is what we all want for ourselves - more intelligence, better health, more attractiveness, and a better understanding of reality.

First off, we would like to know if you are a socialist, capitalist, anarchist, or whatever.

I neither support nor oppose any of these ideals. I suspect, although I don't really know, that capitalism probably works best for moderately intelligent populations, socialism will probably work better for more intelligent and conscientious populations, and anarchy would be feasible for an extremely civilized and intelligent society, since the government would be redundant. In a sense, this is not unlike Marx' vision, I suppose, only I think that in order to undergo any sort of socioploitical evolution we need to evolve more as humans.

Secondly, we need to know how far you go with this 'race' or 'genetic' thing. What would you like to be done?

I would like to see intelligence increased one or two standard deviations, and conscientiousness increased one standard deviation. From there we will be better able to set more definable and reasonable goals, as we will have more knowledge and more wisdom than we do today.

Would you like everyone to go back to the continent that they derived from?

I see no need for that.

Would you like to re-institute segregation?

If I thought it would serve some purpose, I wouldn't be opposed to it. People of their own volition segregate themselves by religion, language, and ethnicity. It's almost worth asking, "why bother imposing governmental segregation?"

Would you want society to tailor itself to each race's needs? (Whatever they make be)

While race is neat, I honestly tend to think in terms of the individual. The main reason I bring up race is because people tend to blame whites for the failure of other races rather than point to actual solutions. Seriously, if blacks are less intelligent than whites purely because of racism, then where did they get larger penises from? And if Jews make 50% more money than whites and are themselves more intelligent, aren't they the real oppressors? By accepting that ethnic differences are real, we can move away from finger pointing and ethnic conflict, and talk about making things better for everybody.

Would interracial marriages be banned, outlawed, or restricted?

I've never really seen a compelling reason for that.

Would you like some sort of 'race war'?

That is precisely what I hope to avoid. Egalitarian racial nihilism is working minorities into a fever of resentment. Meanwhile White Nationalism points to this anti-white hysteria and in turn whips up anti-nonwhite hysteria. Ethnic strife, and especially a future racewar, isn't good for anybody. Right now civilization is going downhill, just as it always does when we reach a certain level. If it crashes too soon, there won't be any hope of escaping the coming dark age.

What 'race' are you, by the way?

I am about 1/2 English, 1/2 Irish, 1/8th Cherokee, and 1/8th unknown. I'm standard issue American. You can find a picture of me at my homepage, www.geocities.com/nachtwolf4321 (http://www.geocities.com/nachtwolf4321)

--Mark

Millennium

3rd June 2003, 01:10

ok, someone asked me this and i was a little set back because i couldnt answer it right away. We all advocate better education and less of an income gap, but in our current system even with the very bad education system and large class gap, people form lower income families can still get a public education and if they work hard enough then they can go to college and get a high paying job, its not likely; and yes they do have to work harder than better off families, but it can be done right? So that was basicly his argument and i would like to see what you think.

Many, if not most, people are not intelligent enough to get a good education. This is a simple reality; the average IQ of college goers is around 115, one standard deviation above the norm. According to Straight Talk About Mental Tests, intelligence has a "threshold" effect.

Below 50: You will never pass elementary school.
Below 75: You won't make it through high school.
Below 100: You don't have much chance in college.

Since the US average is around 100, this means that most people can't get a good education even if it were free. Right now, these people are stuck, and while they can become successful blue collar workers and make a decent wage, they are barred from the high paying professions. I'd like to see their intelligence increased, so that they could get a degree and become a professional if that was the direction their personal inclinations led them in.

--Mark

(Edited by Millennium at 1:13 am on June 3, 2003)

Lardlad95

3rd June 2003, 02:44

ok...I'm tired of the IQ thing so lets disscuss something else.

Mark how do you feel about Bush's tax package?

Millennium

3rd June 2003, 03:17

Unfortunately (from your standpoint) :

I am indifferent to, unaware of, and disinterested in, Bush's tax package. No matter what it is or how it works, it represents a tradeoff of some kind, and probably will have no effect on the genetic quality of humanity in the long run. There have been tax proposals in the past, and there will be tax proposals in the future, but all the while dysgenics is eroding our ability to earn money to pay those taxes.

You see what I mean when I say "I'm politically neutral" and "I'm a eugenist." I don't have conventional political views. I consider conventional politics largely irrelevant. I don't read the papers, and I don't vote. I do think Bush is a complete idiot, but that problem, like all others, boils down to the inherent nature of life in a society where the average IQ is 100. Every problem boils down to the inherent nature of life in a society where the average IQ is 100.

If you want to talk about something other than intelligence, here's an interesting discussion on morality going on at the eugenics email list I post on. I don't agree with Alypius' views, but consider him well read, articulate and interesting:

_____________

All real-world, organically evolved systems of morality rest partly on consequentialism. Criticisms of consequentialism are directed against moral philosophies based exclusively on consequentialism, whereas in real human cultures, consequentialism is only one componenet.

While it is true that suravival is not always a moral imperative, I think every society views survival as a moral imperative for society as a whole, just not for individuals or other subsets of society. To the extent that eugenic breeding patterns contribute to collective survival, they are part of a larger moral imperative.

This attempt to articificially develop a moral system from scratch based on reason alone is a cultural peculiarity of Enlightenment intellectuals (Kant, for example). But all these attempts have failed to find acceptance by real human societies. Certainly there are some moral principles common to all human societies, such as "Thou shalt not steal; (however, stealing means something very different in an individualistic capitalist society than it does in a traditional Eskimo village where "private" property might be regarded as the property of the village, and stealing a synonym for raiding by another village). But moral systems are not based exclusively on some set of universally accepted principles (and even if it were, moral rules, as in the example above, might take many different, and mutually incompatible, forms). Functioning human moral systems are invariably based on some combination of consequentialism, custom, and religious tradition, and ultimately is matter of conformity to a set of generally accepted (with a given society) "rules of the game." Whether one drives on the right or left hand side of the road is not an intrinsic moral principle, but it becomes a de facto moral principle when driving on the "wrong" side of the road endangers peoples' lives--thus, it is immoral to drive on the right hand side of the road in England, and the left hand side in America. Unless the rules of the game themselves become flagrantly unjust (tyrannical), obedience to these rules constitute morality and disobedience, immorality. Of course, this does not resolve all problems. Because of different cultures, and especially different religions or ideologies, people will not always agree on what is tyrannical and what is just. Thus, while Jefferson and Paine viewed the American Revolution as self-evidently just, loyalists were just as convinced it was the most heinous treason. This is what makes morality so irrevocably culture bound. No universal morality is possible without a universal culture or a universal religion.

Morality is one aspect of the human cultural mosaic; moral systems are functional, but they are not entirely, nor do they need to be, logically consistent in all respects, nor do their conceptions of underlying, universal moral principles need to be "self-evident" to all humanity in order to form the basis of a functional and practically virtuous society. Heirs of the Enlightenment have a great deal of trouble accepting this, in part because they cannot see that their own obsession with creating a "universal" morality based on logical principles (or, in the case of Kant, a single moral principle) is itself an artifact of a particualar ideology which evolved within a particular culture. When Liberals (that is, heirs of the Englightenment, such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, or Maggie Thatcher and Tony Blair) level the charge of moral relativism, one can only say, first, that this is not necessarily true; for example, Christians and Muslims believe they have a universal morality which is divinely revealed, buy not necessarily self-evident to all men because of our finitude, or corruption, and our dulled spiritual senses. Englightenment Liberals still see this "universal" morality as particularism, that is culture-bound, but usually cannot see that their own assumptions are just as particularistic, or culture-bound. Indeed, all moral system are culture bound, just as they are biology-bound. EO Wilson has pointed out that if ants were smart enough to articulate moral systems, the moral systems of ants would be radically different from those of mammals. Yet neither is biology set in stone, but has evolved over many millions of years.

With neither culture nor, in the longer term, even genes rigidly fixed, morality, although it may change very slowly, is not fixed in an absolute sense. We have a morality which is appropriate for our species; furthermore, there are different morals systems for hunter-gatherers than for agrarians. A hunter-gatherer would regard private, individual ownership of land as immoral, whereas it is entirely natural to the civilized agrarian. This is because the consequences of private land ownership are very different within a hunter-gathering band than within an agrarian civiilization. It is highly functional for the latter society, and highly destructive for the former society.

Ancient and Medieval westerners held that there were univeral moral principles, which they called natural law, but that natural law took many different forms in human laws, as was appropriate to time and place. (I don't think this is a univeral human opinion, although that fact does not prove that natual law does not exist, only that it is moot.) Thus, the written law would have to be changed on occasion to better conform to the unwritten principles; but I don't know that any attempt was ever made to reduce natural law itself to written form. I doubt the ancients would have viewed it as possible to accurately capture natural law in articulate speech. Natural law is analagous to Plato's celestial universals. It cannot be known clearly and directly, but must be apprehended intuitively, and so human laws in all cultures can only imperfectly reflect natural law. No doubt, some societies reflect the natural law less perfectly than others.

The Enlightenment project of removing all ambiguity and reducing everything to precise, logical, verbal principles along the lines of Newtonian physics has invariably failed, and will continue to fail. Whether or not one believes that there is a univeral moral system or principle, we must still live with a certain measure of ambiguity, uncertainty, ignorance, and imperfection. Furthermore, our organically evolved, culture-bound moralities, even when not perfectly consistent, often are more functional, and a better reflection of human nature, than abstract systems of morality devised by brilliant intellectuals sitting in a library.

~Alypius[/i]

__________________

As socialists, what do you think about what Alypius is saying? Are his views about the nature of morality correct? Do we have a moral imperative to strive for a socialist (or a eugenic) society?

--Mark

Pete

3rd June 2003, 03:42

Why did you , in a different thread, change my % marks into IQ as if they where the same thing?

Millennium

3rd June 2003, 05:29

If you meant this:

My mom and my dad both did like hell in school. My older brother had a high 70, my sis mid 80, me low 90 my bro high 70 and my other sis high 70. How is that genetic when my parents ahd low 60s and high 50s?

Then obviously I didn't change anything; you left the % marks out. Honestly I thought what you said was freaky-weird, but I'd become so inured to people saying bizarre things which they apparently believed themselves since I came here that I took it at face value. Assuming that you meant to include percentage signs after all those numbers, it makes a hell of a lot more sense, and I appreciate you calling it to my attention.

Before I answer, I want to know: Were you talking about grades or IQ percentile scores?

--Mark

(Edited by Millennium at 5:34 am on June 3, 2003)

Pete

3rd June 2003, 15:28

IQ tests are bull shit :)

Grades of course. Last year/current year Highschool (and for my 2nd sis elementary school)

Lardlad95

3rd June 2003, 16:51

Quote: from Millennium on 3:17 am on June 3, 2003
Unfortunately (from your standpoint) :

I am indifferent to, unaware of, and disinterested in, Bush's tax package. No matter what it is or how it works, it represents a tradeoff of some kind, and probably will have no effect on the genetic quality of humanity in the long run. There have been tax proposals in the past, and there will be tax proposals in the future, but all the while dysgenics is eroding our ability to earn money to pay those taxes.

You see what I mean when I say "I'm politically neutral" and "I'm a eugenist." I don't have conventional political views. I consider conventional politics largely irrelevant. I don't read the papers, and I don't vote. I do think Bush is a complete idiot, but that problem, like all others, boils down to the inherent nature of life in a society where the average IQ is 100. Every problem boils down to the inherent nature of life in a society where the average IQ is 100.

If you want to talk about something other than intelligence, here's an interesting discussion on morality going on at the eugenics email list I post on. I don't agree with Alypius' views, but consider him well read, articulate and interesting:

_____________

All real-world, organically evolved systems of morality rest partly on consequentialism. Criticisms of consequentialism are directed against moral philosophies based exclusively on consequentialism, whereas in real human cultures, consequentialism is only one componenet.

While it is true that suravival is not always a moral imperative, I think every society views survival as a moral imperative for society as a whole, just not for individuals or other subsets of society. To the extent that eugenic breeding patterns contribute to collective survival, they are part of a larger moral imperative.

This attempt to articificially develop a moral system from scratch based on reason alone is a cultural peculiarity of Enlightenment intellectuals (Kant, for example). But all these attempts have failed to find acceptance by real human societies. Certainly there are some moral principles common to all human societies, such as "Thou shalt not steal; (however, stealing means something very different in an individualistic capitalist society than it does in a traditional Eskimo village where "private" property might be regarded as the property of the village, and stealing a synonym for raiding by another village). But moral systems are not based exclusively on some set of universally accepted principles (and even if it were, moral rules, as in the example above, might take many different, and mutually incompatible, forms). Functioning human moral systems are invariably based on some combination of consequentialism, custom, and religious tradition, and ultimately is matter of conformity to a set of generally accepted (with a given society) "rules of the game." Whether one drives on the right or left hand side of the road is not an intrinsic moral principle, but it becomes a de facto moral principle when driving on the "wrong" side of the road endangers peoples' lives--thus, it is immoral to drive on the right hand side of the road in England, and the left hand side in America. Unless the rules of the game themselves become flagrantly unjust (tyrannical), obedience to these rules constitute morality and disobedience, immorality. Of course, this does not resolve all problems. Because of different cultures, and especially different religions or ideologies, people will not always agree on what is tyrannical and what is just. Thus, while Jefferson and Paine viewed the American Revolution as self-evidently just, loyalists were just as convinced it was the most heinous treason. This is what makes morality so irrevocably culture bound. No universal morality is possible without a universal culture or a universal religion.

Morality is one aspect of the human cultural mosaic; moral systems are functional, but they are not entirely, nor do they need to be, logically consistent in all respects, nor do their conceptions of underlying, universal moral principles need to be "self-evident" to all humanity in order to form the basis of a functional and practically virtuous society. Heirs of the Enlightenment have a great deal of trouble accepting this, in part because they cannot see that their own obsession with creating a "universal" morality based on logical principles (or, in the case of Kant, a single moral principle) is itself an artifact of a particualar ideology which evolved within a particular culture. When Liberals (that is, heirs of the Englightenment, such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, or Maggie Thatcher and Tony Blair) level the charge of moral relativism, one can only say, first, that this is not necessarily true; for example, Christians and Muslims believe they have a universal morality which is divinely revealed, buy not necessarily self-evident to all men because of our finitude, or corruption, and our dulled spiritual senses. Englightenment Liberals still see this "universal" morality as particularism, that is culture-bound, but usually cannot see that their own assumptions are just as particularistic, or culture-bound. Indeed, all moral system are culture bound, just as they are biology-bound. EO Wilson has pointed out that if ants were smart enough to articulate moral systems, the moral systems of ants would be radically different from those of mammals. Yet neither is biology set in stone, but has evolved over many millions of years.

With neither culture nor, in the longer term, even genes rigidly fixed, morality, although it may change very slowly, is not fixed in an absolute sense. We have a morality which is appropriate for our species; furthermore, there are different morals systems for hunter-gatherers than for agrarians. A hunter-gatherer would regard private, individual ownership of land as immoral, whereas it is entirely natural to the civilized agrarian. This is because the consequences of private land ownership are very different within a hunter-gathering band than within an agrarian civiilization. It is highly functional for the latter society, and highly destructive for the former society.

Ancient and Medieval westerners held that there were univeral moral principles, which they called natural law, but that natural law took many different forms in human laws, as was appropriate to time and place. (I don't think this is a univeral human opinion, although that fact does not prove that natual law does not exist, only that it is moot.) Thus, the written law would have to be changed on occasion to better conform to the unwritten principles; but I don't know that any attempt was ever made to reduce natural law itself to written form. I doubt the ancients would have viewed it as possible to accurately capture natural law in articulate speech. Natural law is analagous to Plato's celestial universals. It cannot be known clearly and directly, but must be apprehended intuitively, and so human laws in all cultures can only imperfectly reflect natural law. No doubt, some societies reflect the natural law less perfectly than others.

The Enlightenment project of removing all ambiguity and reducing everything to precise, logical, verbal principles along the lines of Newtonian physics has invariably failed, and will continue to fail. Whether or not one believes that there is a univeral moral system or principle, we must still live with a certain measure of ambiguity, uncertainty, ignorance, and imperfection. Furthermore, our organically evolved, culture-bound moralities, even when not perfectly consistent, often are more functional, and a better reflection of human nature, than abstract systems of morality devised by brilliant intellectuals sitting in a library.

~Alypius[/i]

__________________

As socialists, what do you think about what Alypius is saying? Are his views about the nature of morality correct? Do we have a moral imperative to strive for a socialist (or a eugenic) society?

--Mark

I can see you are true to your cause of Eugenetics......never mind then

I will say this though...tell that Alypius guy that they aren't called Eskimo anymore they are Inuit

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd June 2003, 17:36

Before you leave, Millennium, I'd like to let you know that the reason why your views are unaccepted is not because we have been 'brainwashed' or anything. The reason is because it's extremely judgemental to classify a group of people (criminals, rapists, etc.) as fundamentaly bad. And from the judgement that they are bad, you conclude that they should not reproduce. This really shows your superficiality, Millennium, because maybe someone who has criminal parents, can surely contribute to society in some way, and should not be ostracized and rejected from the miracle of reproduction. How can you judge people like that, Millennium? And even if your judgements that someone's child will be a criminal were truthful, why would you want to prevent them from having the child who may possibly do something great, aside from beaking laws. The basis of your theory rests on your intolerance for people who do not appease you socialy. So, should we prevent all members of the bourgeoisie from reproducing, because they sure piss me off? No, Millennium. Society should not try to oust it's 'unprefferable' members, it should adjust to all of the members' needs, or remove the possibility of the 'unprefferable' members to manifest in a harmful way, thus making the members not 'unprefferable'. Anyway, back to my last point, your theory rests on your intolerance for people who do not appease you, and therefore you want to remove them from society, leaving only those who are acceptable according to Millennium. Maybe they are wonderful individuals according to Bill, or maybe in another culture, the person's defects may be viewed as qualities, who are you to judge? So...ah yes, you wanted the 'bad' people removed from society so you could be left with only 'good' people. To me this sounds like madness.

Anyway, your theory rests also on genetics. You say that genetics determine whether or not one is likely to be an alcoholic, or a criminal, etc. Alcoholism, however, is derived from emotional issues. Robbery and unlawfulness is derived, not from psycological issues, but from social issues. Crime is a fault of society, the criminal is the victim.

Pete

3rd June 2003, 19:17

Eskimo = Eaters of Raw meat in Algonquin (I believe). Extremely derogitory

Innu = The People (singular Innuit) what the call themselves.

Nunavut = The Land. The newly created territory of Nunavut came into effect in 1999 and consists of over half of the old North West Territories.

I am pretty sure Algonquin is a derogatory term which we have accepted as the true name of a civilization.

Millennium

4th June 2003, 01:45

IQ tests are bull shit

Oh?

The following statements were from a lerger document signed by over fifty experts in the field of intelligence:

Since the publication of "The Bell Curve," many commentators have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate current scientific evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are actually firmly supported.

This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, origins, and practical consequences of individual and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. The following conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence.

1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings--"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

3. While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).

I'm sorry; the conception that "IQ tests are bullshit" is an urban legend.

Grades of course

See this is what I mean when I say that the things I read here are bizarre. I never said good grades were hereditary; your question is purposeless. Of course, IQ isn't a bad predictor of grades, but your parents had different instructors, different levels of interest, different amounts of time to devote to their studies, different criteria applied to grades (you are aware of "grade inflation," I hope), etc. Your question just doesn't mean anything.

___________________

Before you leave, Millennium, I'd like to let you know that the reason why your views are unaccepted is not because we have been 'brainwashed' or anything.

Strangely, your post here actually provides evidence that you are.

The reason is because it's extremely judgemental to classify a group of people (criminals, rapists, etc.) as fundamentaly bad.

But I haven't done this. Again: I have not done this. You only believe that I have done this. If you aren't socialized to misconstrue and misrepresent the ideas of anyone who things that genes matter, and to believe that people who think genes do matter are genetic determinists, then where did this idea come from? I'm gaining a newfound respect for Stephen Pinker; you might want to take a look at The Blank Slate.

And from the judgement that they are bad, you conclude that they should not reproduce.

Again, you are misconstruing my beliefs. I simply think they should reproduce less than people with more desirable traits reproduce. You will notice, if you read over the "what should we do" thread, that I am in favor of socializing birth control and allowing the underclass to reduce their own fertility as they see fit. Your interpretation of my ideas is confused. Where did you get the idea that I felt they should not reproduce? Once again, this is a stereotype that has likely been indoctrinated into you through upbringing and education.

This really shows your superficiality, Millennium, because maybe someone who has criminal parents, can surely contribute to society in some way, and should not be ostracized and rejected from the miracle of reproduction.

I agree. But I think if you have read what I just said, you'll see that my understanding of this issue is far deeper than your own. You have simplified and dichotomized; I see gradations and you see moralistic black and white. I never said the underclass was "bad;" that was your own term; so was "inferior."

How can you judge people like that, Millennium?

As I have demonstrated, you are the judgmental one. Honestly I don't see anything wrong with being judgmental, but I'd like you to understand that when you characterize my views as "unacceptable" you are judging.

And even if your judgements that someone's child will be a criminal were truthful, why would you want to prevent them from having the child who may possibly do something great, aside from beaking laws.

I wouldn't.

The basis of your theory rests on your intolerance for people who do not appease you socialy.

No, it doesn't. If that were true then I'd make every effort to reduce the fertility of socialists. :)

So, should we prevent all members of the bourgeoisie from reproducing, because they sure piss me off?

No.

No, Millennium.

Hahahah!

Society should not try to oust it's 'unprefferable' members

Is "unprefferable" even a word?

it should adjust to all of the members' needs, or remove the possibility of the 'unprefferable' members to manifest in a harmful way, thus making the members not 'unprefferable'.

...I'm sorry, I wanted to try to give you a response to everything you said, but I can't take your post seriously enough to respond respectfully, and I think I'd better leave it at that rather than risk further offending you.

--Mark

(Edited by Millennium at 1:58 am on June 4, 2003)

Pete

4th June 2003, 02:27

You rely to heavily on others ideas. What I have I came to because of my personal experiences. Quit quoting people, that is an annoying way to write, especially on the internet, and tell us in your own words. I don't care what 3 experts said, for all I know they are self styled genius that have never had human interaction psat the books they read.

IQ tests are bullshit. Any standardized test is, do not even think about arguing that because it is true. Everyone is strong in one area, no one is weak every where. If you averaged out everyone we would all = 1. Where I am strong you may be horribly weak.

Millennium

4th June 2003, 03:36

You rely to heavily on others ideas.

It's called sourcing your claims. Look, if you had said "IQ tests are bullshit," and I'd just said, "No they aren't, you're wrong" then what would we have accomplished? I'm sorry if it makes you unhappy to know that people who have looked into the matter disagree with you, but you honestly don't have a leg to stand on as far as IQ tests go.

What I have I came to because of my personal experiences.

I have personal experiences as well, but I'm wise enough not to use them as the only source for my beliefs. In fact, you notice that I don't bring them up at all, because it's impossible to verify that my experiences are genuine. I could tell you that my great grandfather was the king of Sweden, but that wouldn't make it true. However, when I say that the expert consensus on IQ tests is that they work, people who suspect I'm making it up can see for themselves. In this case, the information I took was published in the Wall Street Journal, and I've put up a copy at the children of millennium website.

I don't care what 3 experts said

Over 50 experts signed that statement, in case it wasn't clear to you. They represented the mainstream view on what intelligence is.

IQ tests are bullshit. Any standardized test is, do not even think about arguing that because it is true.

The earth is flat. The Pope says so, and do not even think about arguing because it is true.

God created the earth in seven days. Do not even think about arguing becase it is true.

Humans were created in the likeness of the divine. Do not even think of arguing because it is true.

Hopefully these examples adequately demonstrate the masturbatory nature of blanket, unsupported statements. If we wanted to know whether the earth was flat, why not ask people who know, like astronauts? If we want to know whether the earth was created in seven days, why not ask geologists? If we want to know whether humans evolved from earlier primates, why not ask biologists? If you want to know whether IQ tests are bullshit or not, ask a psychologist. Guess what? Psychologists don't agree with you.

Where I am strong you may be horribly weak.

This is another misconception. Are all strong people stupid? Are all attractive people dishonest? As a matter of fact, all mental abilities are intercorrelated. That is, while there are seperate and distinct mental modules for verbal ability, mathimatical ability, spatial ability, and so on, someone who is good at one of these will be highly likely to excell at them all. I've mentioned that I test well into the upper .1% intelligence-wise, and it's no coincidence that I am good musically (I have composed several songs), mathematically (I'm in my second year of Calculus) verbally (read my posts) and spatially (I've won video game tournaments). CrazyPete, smart people aren't just "book smart," they really are smart.

In closing I'd like to say that you haven't looked into this, and it's abundantly clear that you really have no idea what you're talking about. I can't help but wonder whether, at school, you argued with the instructors when they marked your tests wrong and told them that discussion was useless because your view was "a fact." It isn't always easy, but at some point you have to defer to those who know more than you. I'm not lecturing you on how to build a car or how to raise cattle, because I don't know how to do those things. By the same token, you shouldn't try to lecture me on IQ.

--Mark

(Edited by Millennium at 3:39 am on June 4, 2003)

(Edited by Millennium at 3:42 am on June 4, 2003)

Pete

4th June 2003, 04:02

That is an extreme generalization of what I said. It is like people thinking Darwins said "survival of the fitest"

Dr. Rosenpenis

4th June 2003, 04:40

alright Millennium, 'unprefferable' is not a word, sorry. I meant it as the opposite of desirable.
My point, anyway, was that you want to encourage people who you classify as 'underclass' to reproduce less than they currently do. In short, you want less of their sort around. And you think that that you can decrease the numbers of people with undesirable traits by having them reproduce less. This has to do with your genetics theory, and we won't go into that now. Anyway, the problem is that your trying to judge people, then telling them that there is something fundamentaly wrong with them, and you want less of that around. I was simply judging your idea, I was being critical, even you seem to try to encourage criticism.

Pete

4th June 2003, 04:49

Eugenics is the antithesis of socialism.

Millennium

4th June 2003, 05:28

That is an extreme generalization of what I said. It is like people thinking Darwins said "survival of the fitest"

I don't think anybody here believes you when you say that. In what way have I overgeneralized anything you said?

Eugenics is the antithesis of socialism.

It depends on how you define eugenics and socialism. We obviously have the same goals, but eugenists have a plan for achieving those goals which will actually work.

My point, anyway, was that you want to encourage people who you classify as 'underclass' to reproduce less than they currently do. In short, you want less of their sort around.

This may seem like what I'm saying, but it isn't, really.

Let me preface this by saying that all of my life I have been poor. No, I don't mean trendy, "I can't afford a second car," poor. I mean we have used a cast off television for years. I mean, I grew up wearing clothes that had holes in them. I mean, I don't have a car and have to take the bus everywhere. I mean, many, if not most, of my friends and associates are part of the "underclass." While my entire family is extremely intelligent, we ended up poorer than most Americans because my mother has Schizophrenia (which is roughly 50% genetic) and my father divorced her and failed to pay child support.

Now that you may better understand where I'm coming from, members of the underclass aren't divided from members of the upper and middle classes by discrete boundaries. It's arbitrary; we've just said "if you make less than X dollars a year, you are below the poverty line." The truth is that genetic wealth exists on a continuum. By encouraging people who were more intelligent to reproduce more, and those people who are less intelligent to reproduce less, you will raise the average IQ accross the board (although due to the way eugenics works, it would most strongly affect the lower classes). When this happens, the whole society will be richer, so they'll have to redraw the poverty line.

There will always be an underclass; the question is, will members of that underclass be hopelessly dependent on government subsidies? Will they be crime prone and unable to raise their children effectively? Japan has an underclass, but their underclass lives longer and commits far less crime. (For instance, the rape rate in Japan is an astounding 1/20th what it is in America.) So it's not about getting rid of anybody - it's about empowering everybody.

And you think that that you can decrease the numbers of people with undesirable traits by having them reproduce less. This has to do with your genetics theory

It's not "my genetics theory," it's simple evolution. Darwin was a eugenist; if you believe in the theory of evolution, then you believe in the theory of eugenics.

I was simply judging your idea, I was being critical, even you seem to try to encourage criticism.

I agree that we probably should be critical, so long as we understand that we have to be careful about judging others negatively simply because they themselves judge.

--Mark

Dr. Rosenpenis

4th June 2003, 06:05

My point, anyway, was that you want to encourage people who you classify as 'underclass' to reproduce less than they currently do. In short, you want less of their sort around.

so, to rephrase that I would say ...you want to raise the average IQ, by encouraging people classified as 'underclass' to reproduce less, thus lower their numbers in relation to the 'aboveclass'. (or whatever the geneticaly 'better' people would be called)?

Anyway, I understand that your idea is to manualy alter the quality of people in society, which I think is a fundamentaly wrong idea.

Millennium

4th June 2003, 07:34

Victorcommie, first of all what I really want to do is alter the reproductive patterns of people who are more or less intelligent than the average. These people do tend to cluster in the underclass, so usually negative eugenics is more effective if it's aimed at the underclass. But I think you're focussing too much on the whole class issue. There are bright and dull members of every race, class, or religion. Socioeconomic status is just a rough proxy for genetic wealth.

In other words, simply encouraging the underclass to reproduce less and the upper class to reproduce more wouldn't be as effective as going straight to the source and encouraging the intelligent and healthy to reproduce more than the less intelligent and less healthy.

Anyway, I understand that your idea is to manualy alter the quality of people in society, which I think is a fundamentaly wrong idea.

Again, I'm not sure I understand your terminology; "manually" implies "with the hands." I don't want to forcibly improve the quality of humanity, if that's what you're saying you disagree with.

As I've said before, only 39% of pregnancies in women below the poverty line are intended. And within the underclass, it's mostly the less intelligent women who are having these unwanted pregnancies. It's just good common sense to make birth control more readilly available to these women, because they don't want to be having so many children themselves. It's not good for their children to be unwanted, it's not good for them to end up being financially burdened with these children, and it's not good for society either because it has a net dysgenic effect. Socialized birth control would be good for everybody. It would pay for itself in the short term, it would empower these underclass women and alleviate their financial burdens, it would reduce misery almost immediately, and it would have a long term eugenic effect.

The last part may seem incidental, but it's actually the most important aspect of socialized birth control, because right now the genetic component to IQ is declining at a rate of 1-2 points per generation. At current rates of decline, civilization will collapse in 200 years. It has happenned before to every other Western civilization, and it will happen to us too, if we don't wake up and take steps to avoid disaster.

--Mark

synthesis

4th June 2003, 08:01

And within the underclass, it's mostly the less intelligent women who are having these unwanted pregnancies.

How so?

Millennium

4th June 2003, 08:05

*blink*

Is this a serious question?

--Mark

synthesis

4th June 2003, 08:29

Don't you feel the slightest bit callous implying that only stupid people have children they can't afford?

After all, and correct me if I'm wrong, one of your major goals is to institute socialized birth control, so everybody can afford it.

Here, you seem to be implying that if someone doesn't use birth control, it isn't because they can't afford it, it's because they're too stupid to make use of it.

Am I right? Or did I just misinterpret you?

Bianconero

4th June 2003, 09:07

After all, I think that education plays the most important part in order to make people understand social issues. I find it rather absurd to think that 'genetics' play a major role there. They play a role, yes, but education plays an even bigger one.

Then, back to your 'IQ - tests' (I actually mentioned this in the other thread, sadly you didn't reply, genius) they are biased. Culturally and, of course, concerning what every individual is interested in.

That is, in my very humble oppinion, what ridicules your whole 'theory', because you can never evaluate how intelligent an individual really is. Then if you could, it would still be elitarian to make 'intelligent' people reproduce more than 'unintelligent'. This is against everything a marxist stands for.

Anyway, Millennium, Mark, whatever, it was quite a pleasure to read the oppinions of some kind of 'super human'. I guess you should encourage people in your country to build a statue for yourself or something.

(Edited by Bianconero at 9:07 am on June 4, 2003)

(Edited by Bianconero at 9:08 am on June 4, 2003)

Millennium

4th June 2003, 11:54

Don't you feel the slightest bit callous implying that only stupid people have children they can't afford?

No, as I never intended to imply that. That would be far too strong.

Here, you seem to be implying that if someone doesn't use birth control, it isn't because they can't afford it, it's because they're too stupid to make use of it.

All I said was that the less intelligent were more likely to have unwanted pregnancies. I have sources for this claim, but if if you consider it for a moment, I think it will make sense. The smarter you are, the more likely you are to remember to use birth control and to use it effectively. Smarter people also tend to better understand long term consequences (which is partly why criminality is inversely correlated with IQ) so they will be more worried about using birth control consistently. Conscientiousness and religious values also come into play here. And Of course, despite the general trend, there will still be many intelligent people who experience unwanted pregnancies, just as many of those who are less intelligent will have no problems with unwanted pregnancies.

Mostly I do speak in generalities and probabilities. Statistics was, after all, invented by the father of eugenics, Francis Galton, so it may not be a coincidence that we reason in this way. In the field of social science, almost nothing is ever 100%, so for instance while I may say that IQ tests are meaningful, most are in fact only around 70% accurate at measuring general intelligence; the rest of the variance on IQ is other mental modules such as verbal ability or spatial ability, and of course test error which usually runs around 5%. Usually all I argue against is the "all or nothing" propositions. For example, while it is almost impossible that racial differences in, say, reaction time, are wholly environmental, they probably aren't wholly genetic either.

LardLad has appreciated where I'm coming from here because he seems to think in a similar fashion, but I think most socialists may be used to all-or-nothing reasoning with if-thens and logical necessities. Social science is usually far more tentative. Obviously, no one factor (upbringing, intelligence, testosterone levels, religion, and so on) is fully predictive of behavior. But sometimes very slight differences which are only visible at the statistical level can have drastic implications. For instance, the more intelligent you are, generally the less children you will have, but intelligence and fertility correlate negatively at a mere 30%. This isn't isn't very much, but given enough time, the genetic component to IQ will decline far enough to result in the destruction of civilization. This is not just some wild theoretical prediction, as it has happenned in the past.

Consider the origin of the term "prolitariat." The word is Latin, and it initially meant "one who is fit to do nothing to breed." The policy of encouraging the "prolitariat" to have more offspring than anyone else didn't have immediate negative consequences, but it proved disastrous for Rome in the long run.

I guess you should encourage people in your country to build a statue for yourself or something.

If you want a respectful response, you will have to give me a respectful post.

--Mark

(Edited by Millennium at 11:57 am on June 4, 2003)

(Edited by Millennium at 12:00 pm on June 4, 2003)

Ghost Writer

4th June 2003, 12:32

"Statistics was, after all, invented by the father of eugenics, Francis Galton"

Bullshit. Statistics existed as a field of math and logic prior to Galton. Ever heard of Gauss, Bayes, or Descartes.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 12:36 pm on June 4, 2003)

Bianconero

4th June 2003, 13:23

"If you want a respectful response, you will have to give me a respectful post."

I'll tell you what I think. I think that your whole 'theory' is about belittling human beings, telling 'less intelligent' not to 'reproduce.'

And you are telling me to be respectful? What I have a problem with is people telling others that they simply are not up to their standards by nature. From my experience, it's mostly people claiming to be superior who are the least intelligent.

Anyway, I never really expected an answer. Just wanted to give my oppinion on your ... erm ... whatever it's supposed to be.

(Edited by Bianconero at 1:24 pm on June 4, 2003)

Pete

4th June 2003, 20:00

It's called sourcing your claims

Remember there is a different between stating ones opinion and backing it up and between stringing together other peoples opinions.

It depends on how you define eugenics and socialism. We obviously have the same goals, but eugenists have a plan for achieving those goals which will actually work.

Completely incorrect. You oppose the basic principle that there can be and equal society because there are inferior and superior genetic stalks. You want to alter the breeding of these different 'gene classes,' yet you refuse to look at the social conditions that bring about the differing levels of IQ, the idea that different people have different skill in different areas, not all of which can be calculated in a written test, and you, whether or not you will admit it, believe in a super class and a lesser class of humanity.

Socialism and Eugenics WILL NEVER fit together.

Millennium

4th June 2003, 21:42

Remember there is a different between stating ones opinion and backing it up and between stringing together other peoples opinions.

Ah. So astronauts' opinions that the Earth is round don't back up my claim that the Earth is round? You are failing to understand that a credible authority's opinion counts as support for an argument. What you are doing is called "Slothful Induction;" it is a logical fallacy which you can read about here: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/sloth.htm

You oppose the basic principle that there can be and equal society because there are inferior and superior genetic stalks.

Look, the whole point of eugenics is to raise the genetically poor out of their hereditary poverty, and reduce class disparities which currently exist. That's simply what eugenics does.

yet you refuse to look at the social conditions that bring about the differing levels of IQ

Actually I have frequently cited environmental circumstances which have an impact on IQ. You are the one who is dichotomizing the issue and ignoring that genetic circumstances have any impact on IQ. IQ is about 70% hereditary. This means that 30% of IQ is of non-genetic origin (about 5% is test error and 25% environmental influence). I have no problem admitting that 25% of IQ is environmental, but I have shown, again and again again, that a great deal of the IQ is genetic, and it's time you admitted that rather than grasping at fallacious arguments to avoid a conclusion you find unsettling.

Socialism and Eugenics WILL NEVER fit together.

If that is true (and I'm not saying that it is) it is because socialism is defunct. Trendlines from the last 50 years when socialist ideology first started to be applied in America have clearly shown rising crime rates, increasing class disparities, worsening education, and a lower standard of living. Programs such as Head Start, designed to improve the IQs of poor black children environmentally, utterly failed to do this. Adoption into middle class homes likewise failed to reduce the black/white IQ gap. Socialism's many failures to achieve its goals demonstrate the practical reality of everything I've been saying up to this point - Socialism's theories are incorrect. Socialism believes that genetics is insignificant, and this factual error has made a mockery of the best of Socialism's intentions.

Bullshit

I would have thought that by now you would have noted the general pattern of people crying "bullshit" and me demonstrating their ignorance. I don't make claims which I cannot back up.

http://www.altx.com/ebr/ebr6/6tomasula/htm...ingsaying2.html (http://www.altx.com/ebr/ebr6/6tomasula/htmls/seeingsaying2.html)

Sir Francis Galton, the father of statistics in social sciences (as well as the Nature/Culture dialectic we still rely on), used surveying techniques to measure the buttocks of African women and "objectively" proved that contrary to popular belief, black women were proportioned as pleasingly as whites;

http://www.isteve.com/Thatcher-Speech-Text.htm

Galton was Darwin’s smarter cousin, a scientific polymath and inventor who has as much claim as anybody to be the father of statistics, differential psychology, fingerprinting, and the weather map. Galton’s greatest theme, however, was artificial selection. He advocated consciously manipulating the hereditary traits that Darwinian natural selection acts upon so slowly and blindly. Galton’s synthesis of the classic “nurture vs. nature” debate between Marx and Darwin was that we could nurture a new nature for ourselves. And whereas Marx and Darwin disagreed over whether the pace of human change was revolutionary or evolutionary, Galton suggested that evolutionary change could eventually accelerate to a revolutionary pace.

http://www.mugu.com/galton/

Galton was able to place his researches about heredity on a scientific basis by applying novel statistical concepts, and can justly be claimed as one of the very first social scientists, if not the first. This would pave the way for the development of statistics as a discipline, through Galton's follower Karl Pearson.

http://ite.informs.org/Vol1No2/Savage/Savage.php

Sir Francis Galton, the father of Statistics also developed what must have been the first blitzogram. It consisted of a glass-encased array of pins protruding from a board. The pins were arranged in such a pattern, that when ball bearings were dropped into the device, they were randomly reflected right or left at multiple stages, and finally dropped into bins. This resulted in a bell shaped pile of ball bearings at the bottom. It was with the help of the quincunx, as he called this device, that Galton discovered regression to the mean. The odd name derives from the pattern of dots on the 5 side of a die, which was used for the arrangement of the pins.

I could post more, but I hope this is enough. Obviously whenever we want to say who first discovered something or was the father of some scientific discipline there is room for disagreement. We could easilly say, for instance, that Erasmus Darwin, Charles' grandfather, was the real father of Evolution, since he came up with the first theory of evolution (it just turned out not to be very good). I'm sure we can agree that Gauss made important contributions to the general field of mathematics. And some cite Karl Pearson, Galton's disciple, as the father of statistics. Still, Galton invented the correlation coefficient and the concept of regression, and these form the backbone of statistics as a discipline. There may be other arguments, but I think the best ones are in favor of Galton as the father of statistics.

I think that your whole 'theory' is about belittling human beings, telling 'less intelligent' not to 'reproduce.'

You might try actually reading my posts if you were interested in forming an intelligent opinion about what eugenics is really about, rather than applying knee jerk prejudices which will only keep you in a state of forced ignorance in the matter.

--Mark

Vinny Rafarino

5th June 2003, 04:04

I would not consider myself to be a eugenist however I am Intelligent enough to listen to Millennium without bias. Most of our comrades here are interpreting Millennium and his viewpoints as being unfounded or even facist. You cannot be more wrong. I could almost guarantee he is currently the most intelligent individual in this forum. Even more so than me. Socialism and Eugenics would never mix? How can that be when the overall goal for humanity is precisely the same? I myself understand Mr. Millennium entirely as I too usually feel "separated" from the masses due to extensive IQ gaps between them and I. As a matter of fact it is a very heavy load to bear at times. Like it or not comrades. These facts are indeed accurate and you should feel lucky that individuals of this intellectual calibre even bother to concern ourselves with the advancement of the human species as a whole (rather than according to colour as much of you think) knowing the majority of the populace will not only "not get it" but will also misinterpret it's aims as "facist". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Dr. Rosenpenis

5th June 2003, 04:45

by 'manualy' I mean done unnaturaly, in a maner manipulated by people, not deriving from a natural course of events in human development.

Millennium

5th June 2003, 05:39

by 'manualy' I mean done unnaturaly, in a maner manipulated by people, not deriving from a natural course of events in human development.

This actually brings up two interesting points:

1. What is "natural?"
2. Is "natural" better than "unnatural?"

I think that Eugenics is actually quite natural, in that it does exist in nature. Animals will sometimes kill or shun their weakest child; infanticide was common in older human societies. Now we use medicine to artificially aid people who would die in a state of nature. Premature babies, diabetics, nature would mercilessly slay these ones, but we have, in our compassion, helped them to live.

It is dysgenics that is unnatural. Dysgenics is a result of man having artificially altered his environment so that it no longer favors intelligence, conscientiousness, cooperation, strength, and health, but insterad favors the opposite! In a civilized society, it is competition, lack of foresight, impulsivity, and low intelligence which are selected for. We have created an artificial environment which aids those individuals who would not be passing on their genes very much in a state of nature and actually allows them to reproduce more, while at the same time encouraging the genetically fortunate to delay their childbearing until after college, and then to minimize their fertility as children conflict with work.

In a sense, eugenics can be artificial. The way I want to impliment it is artificial, since I see that as compassionate; it is an artificial way to deal with the artificial dysgenic problems we have created by removing natural selection. But this doesn't make eugenics bad; quite to the contrary!

you should feel lucky that individuals of this intellectual calibre even bother to concern ourselves with the advancement of the human species as a whole

This is actually a very important point. Socialists tend to see the upper classes as the bad guys. In a general sense, I can agree with this. For the most part the intelligent are selfish and isolated from the rest of humanity. They have no concept of what it is like to not have a car, to have to choose between things like buying a fourth pair of pants or splurging on fast food. Their entire mentality can be typified as "Let them eat cake." The elites are perfectly willing to lie and misrepresent the truth, which is why even though the mainstream scientific community already knows and generally agrees on what I've been saying, the nightly news, and the politicians, and the papers, and the pastors, and the schoolteachers, won't admit it. They have their own goals and agenda which are at odds with what social scientists have been quietly discovering, so they censor the scientists and sweep their ideas under the rug. I'm not worried about helping the smart people, and eugenics won't do them all that much good. Eugenics is for the common man, and that's whom I care about.

Thank you for your kind words, Raf.

--Mark

Dr. Rosenpenis

5th June 2003, 07:19

I think that Eugenics is actually quite natural, in that it does exist in nature. Animals will sometimes kill or shun their weakest child; infanticide was common in older human societies. Now we use medicine to artificially aid people who would die in a state of nature. Premature babies, diabetics, nature would mercilessly slay these ones, but we have, in our compassion, helped them to live.

Are you implying that we should not try to offer the help we can to the weak?

It is dysgenics that is unnatural. Dysgenics is a result of man having artificially altered his environment so that it no longer favors intelligence, conscientiousness, cooperation, strength, and health, but insterad favors the opposite! In a civilized society, it is competition, lack of foresight, impulsivity, and low intelligence which are selected for. We have created an artificial environment which aids those individuals who would not be passing on their genes very much in a state of nature and actually allows them to reproduce more, while at the same time encouraging the genetically fortunate to delay their childbearing until after college, and then to minimize their fertility as children conflict with work.

okay...

In a sense, eugenics can be artificial. The way I want to impliment it is artificial, since I see that as compassionate; it is an artificial way to deal with the artificial dysgenic problems we have created by removing natural selection. But this doesn't make eugenics bad; quite to the contrary!

So...you want to compensate for the lack of natural selection by encouraging the less inteligent and less strong to reproduce less? I think you ought to remove this notion that encouraging people to reproduce in unatural ways will improve society.Even if it may be true (not that I take your theory seriously), do we really want to alter our quality of humans? Why not work with what we got?

Millennium

5th June 2003, 09:53

Are you implying that we should not try to offer the help we can to the weak?

No, only pointing out that, A) Just because something is unnatural doesn't make it bad, and, B) Compassion is not without its price.

So...you want to compensate for the lack of natural selection by encouraging the less inteligent and less strong to reproduce less?

Very good; I also want the more intelligent and more healthy to reproduce more.

I think you ought to remove this notion that encouraging people to reproduce in unatural ways will improve society.

This statement is misleading. I'm not encouraging people to reproduce in "unnatural ways." I think that the less intelligent should use birth control more often (and they generally want to do this themselves!) and that the more intrelligent should start having children younger, and have more of them. Did you know that a woman's health actually suffers if she doesn't reproduce? Or that children conceived after the mother is over 35 are at much higher risk of Downs Syndrome? It is natural to start having kids young; that's the way most societies throughout history have done it. It's only the unnatural reproductive patterns of modern society that encourage women to reproduce so late, and that's what I'd like to see change!

Even if it may be true (not that I take your theory seriously)

You keep alluding to skepticism without articulating it. I think you'd better be straightforward if you want to discuss this.

do we really want to alter our quality of humans?

Who wouldn't want to be smarter, stronger, healthier, or better looking? You socialists have been pouring trillions of dollars into social programs designed to increase intelligence, and persist in spending more money every year on these programs even though they don't provide substantial, long term effects!

Why not work with what we got?

Think like a socialist, Victorcommie. You can easilly work with capitalism. You can easilly work with class and racial disparities. But should you? A better question to ask is, "Why be complacent and accept the problems around us? Why not try to make things better?"

Well? Why not employ eugenics? Especially if the alternative is slow dysgenic decline, the eventual fall of modern civilization, and another thousand year Dark Age. I don't know about you, but I'm not looking forward to modern civilization sputtering out the way the Roman empire did.

--Mark

(Edited by Millennium at 9:56 am on June 5, 2003)

Ghost Writer

5th June 2003, 11:04

My comments were not meant to undercut the merits of Galton's work. Indeed, Pearson and Galton did lay the groundwork for statistical correlation. However, to suggest that statistics was founded by Galton is a misrepresentation of the facts.

It is true that Galton was proponent for the study of intelligence, and pioneered the eugenics movement, but I think your are letting your views about this matter bias your opinion on the field of statistics.

I apologize for calling it bullshit, I did not mean to offend. I merely wanted you to recognize that Galton's work was heavily dependent upon the work of his predecessors. The field of statistics relies heavily upon number theory, which is one of the oldest fields of mathematics. In turn, Galton's work depends on the work of those who built the statistical approach to mathematics.

In short, mathematics as a formal science is evolutionary as it continues to build off of previous knowledge. We mustn't forget the work of Fibonacci, who was among the first to apply a statistical approach to populations, which was the area of interest for Galton.

Sure, Galton revolutionized the field with regression and correlation, but these ideas were reliant on the work of others who were actively involved in advancing the field of mathematics and statistics. Quite simply, Galton 'stood on the shoulders of giants', used their knowledge to push further, and became a giant in his own right. To attribute the creation of statistics to him, undercuts the work of those before him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants," wrote Isaac Newton to Robert Hooke.

Millennium

5th June 2003, 21:05

Honestly you and I are just applying different definitions.

In the strictest sense, what you're saying is absolutely true; all mathematics builds off of what came before (which is why they won't let you take calculus until you've had algebra, for instance). I'm a big fan of Euclid, Fib, Pythagaros, Newton, Cantor, and really just about anyone who has made a contribution to the field. But I don't see that recognizing the achievement of any one of these individuals means of necessity devaluing the contributions of everyone else.

All fathers are themselves the sons of someone else. By crediting Galton as being the "father" of statistics, this in a sense implies that he wasn't the only person to make a contribution, as would be the implication if I had said that he "created" statistics. If Galton is the "father" then we can easilly say that Gauss is the "grandfather," Fibonacci could be the "great grandfather," and so on.

If you are unhappy with my metaphorical way of writing, then I have no problem saying "Galton was a pioneer in the field of statistics, making great strides in the fields of correlation and regression." But I don't think it's in any way misleading to say that he was the father of statistics, either. Ultimately it's just a question of semantics.

--Mark

(Edited by Millennium at 9:11 pm on June 5, 2003)

Pete

5th June 2003, 21:21

Well one of the 'proof' in your article was a lie I must say. The NDP has 14 seats not 9. But I know what it was getting at.

Millennium

5th June 2003, 21:49

*Wince*

It wasn't a news article. It was a page about logical fallacies, written years ago, and using politics as only one example. It wasn't "lying," it was just old information.

--Mark

(Edited by Millennium at 9:50 pm on June 5, 2003)

Millennium

5th June 2003, 22:04

Today I received more evidence that IQ means something, from The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education:

http://www.jbhe.com/latest/37_b&w_sat.html

In 2002 the average black score on the combined math and verbal portions of the SAT test was 857. The mean white score on the combined math and verbal SAT was 17 percent higher at 1060.

If IQ is bullshit, then why does the same gap show up on the SAT? If both IQ and the SAT are bullshit, then why are they both valid predictors of future earnings? As Thomas Sowell (a black man) was able to show in his book Ethnic America, earn less than 60% of what the average white earns. Conversely Ashkenazi Jews, who average around 10 IQ points smarter than whites, make about 50% more money than what the average white earns.

IQ isn't bullshit if it's such a good predictor of scholastic success, future earnings, whether you'll have an illegitimate baby, whether you'll end up on welfare, whether you'll end up in jail, and on and on.

--Mark

Pete

5th June 2003, 22:06

Could it be that racism still exists?

Could it be that countries that don't use standardized tests have better healthcare systems??

Millennium

5th June 2003, 22:13

Racism and health care are irrelevant to the discussion. I have provided overwhelming evidence that IQ is a useful, valid predictor of life outcomes. It is therefore not, in any sense of the word, bullshit, and it's time for you to admit that.

--Mark

Pete

5th June 2003, 22:19

Adress my point with more than 'it is irrelevant' or have you run out of links to show us?

Millennium

5th June 2003, 22:25

It is irrelevant because, even if true, it wouldn't mean that IQ tests are "bullshit." Instead your argument implies that IQ tests accurately gague an intelligence disparity, which you believe is caused by racism, or lack of health care.

But honestly, are you serious when you say that racism or lack of health care depresses black intelligence? How does this happen? By magic? And if Jews are so much smarter than whites and are doing so much better, are we to then say that the intelligence of whites is being somehow lowered by racism from Jews? Why do you think that East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than than whites? Health care??

--Mark

Pete

5th June 2003, 22:39

We have said the IQ tests are entho-centric.

Racism pushes the 'undesirables' into a lower level of education ect. Poorer children go into the Applied/College stream where as middle class are more likely found in Academic/University. It is the lower social status, and the challenges that go along with it that effect the IQs and SATs more than the genes.

I wasn't talking about quality of health care in the sense that you assumed. Where there are no standardized tests, and it is preformace over an extended period of time that matters, there is a better healthcare system. Comparing Canada adn teh United States. You misunderstodd my point on that.

Millennium

5th June 2003, 22:51

We have said the IQ tests are entho-centric.

And I have asked, "then why do Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians score higher?" You were unable to provide an answer to that.

Racism pushes the 'undesirables' into a lower level of education ect

Then why do East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score higher than whites on IQ tests?

It is the lower social status, and the challenges that go along with it that effect the IQs and SATs more than the genes.

Then why do blacks at high social status score no better on IQ tests than whites of low social status?

I wasn't talking about quality of health care in the sense that you assumed. Where there are no standardized tests, and it is preformace over an extended period of time that matters, there is a better healthcare system. Comparing Canada adn teh United States. You misunderstodd my point on that.

"Where there are no standardized tests" there are no IQ scores for me to talk about, are there?

Crazypete, do you like Altoids? I do. I really like the Altoid tins, too; I've used them to store dice or other knicknacks. The best thing is their size; it's convenient the way they fit snugly in your pocket. A little tidbit of information I'll bet you haven't heard is that the inner volume of an Altoid tin is about 5 cubic inches. Think of that; 5 cubic inches.

Here's a thought - imagine opening up your skull, scooping out 5 cubic inches of grey matter, and putting it in an Altoid tin. Just imagine that, all those little neurons and synapses sitting there nice and neat, stored in that Altoid tin.

Oh wait - you don't want to do that, do you? That would be crazy, wouldn't it? It might make you less intelligent if you were missing 5 cubic inches of grey matter, don't you think? Well, guess what? Black people on the average have 5 cubic inches of grey matter less than ethnic Europeans.

It's not racism.
It's not education.
It's grey matter.

--Mark

Pete

5th June 2003, 23:23

It's not racism.

But it is racism, except it has a 'scientific' base.

East Asians. Their parents push harder for success. My friends are constantly pushed to get high marks in the sciences and maths. Over and over again. If they go down in their marks their social life is considered dead. As for Ashkenazi Jews, I feel it is safe to say a similar drive for 'success' exists. Jewish people come from a different culture, they claim to be a different race, as do East Asians. Is it to much to think that although they are living in Canada or the United States that they are not products of their parent's environment as well as their own? And that their parents (who are often very traditionalist) will not force the same standards, if not higher, upon them then an established 'race' would? Something to think about.

Millennium

5th June 2003, 23:34

When blacks don't do as well as whites, you blame whites. But when Jews and Asians do better than whites, you praise Jews and East Asians. That's a double standard, Pete.

Another thing you might ask yourself is, why do East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews "push" their children? You can't say "it's all their culture" until you rule out genetics. Just as some species nurture their young more for genetic reasons, other species nurture their young less. The principle applies just as readilly to different ethnic groups within a single species.

Then again, the high intelligence of East Asians probably has absolutely nothing to do with parental investment, and instead has everything to do with the size of their brains, something you have thus far avoided even commenting about.

--Mark

(Edited by Millennium at 11:38 pm on June 5, 2003)

Pete

5th June 2003, 23:37

I am telling you of the cultural differences. I am telling you why I believe these differences exist. It is not racist to state a social norm that is racist.

The legacy of slavery is strong in America. How long did it take for the civil rights movement to take flight, and why did two of its most outspoken leaders get assassinated? Genetics has nothing to do with this. NOTHING!

I feel genetics, although not completely irrelevant, matters a lot less than you believe. Nature has her part, nuture has hers. Nurture's part is far more important though.

Millennium

5th June 2003, 23:57

Well, there are ways of finding out whether nature or nurture is more important when it comes to intelligence. Twin studies have shown conclusively that IQ is over 70% genetic, leaving only 30% of the IQ differences at most to be explained by environment.

They did this by looking at identical twins, who have the exact same genes, and who were seperated at birth and adopted into different households. The twins were then examined upon reaching adulthood, and it was found that they looked, acted, and thought very much alike. Their IQ scores correlated to a very high degree - over 70%, in fact. They've done this with hundreds of pairs of twins over dozens of studies. The results show, overwhelmingly, that genes account for more variation when it comes to intelligence.

Likewise, they have tested the theory that education, parental investment, and other environmental factors might play a role in depressing the intelligence of blacks. They did this by looking at blacks who were adopted into upper middle class white households. As I have stated before, the IQ gap remained - the white children scored 16 points higher than the black children, with the mixed race half black, half white children scoring midway.

See Pete the thing is that other people have thought about this and said the same things you have. They decided to test the theories and see if they were true, and they found out, over and over, that they were wrong. That's why I keep coming back to the research - it was specifically carried out to test the kinds of ideas you are presenting, and the results falsify your hypotheses.

When you integrate schools and teach blacks alongside whites, blacks still score low. When you adopt blacks into white households, blacks still score low. When you set up special enrichment programs like Head Start specifically to boost black IQ, blacks go through the program, do everything that's asked of them, leave the program, and still score low.

But when we take a sample of blacks, whites, and East Asians and control for breain size - that is, use individuals who have the same sized brain, black or white, for the study - they all score the same. This shows, without leaving room for a reasonable argument, that it's brain size which causes IQ disparities between ethnic groups.

There's no help for it; this is just the way it is.

--Mark

(P.S. I'm sorry for calling you a racist; it was hasty and immature of me, and I edited it out, but apparently you accessed my post before I edited it. I was upsert at your applying what I perceived as a double standard and appreciate you not making too big a deal of it.)

(Edited by Millennium at 12:03 am on June 6, 2003)