Know Your Rights

[phork]

I always find that hilarious. And it's funniest because it's true... in a society where you can no longer completely fail and/or die by being irresponsible (i.e. there is always a safety net for you no matter how much you screw up) then there is no longer natural curb to stupidity/irresponsibility. The average IQ in the US (and the world) has been on a slow decline for decades.

How the world's IQ is in decline - National cognitive science | Examiner.com

Idiocracy (2006) - IMDb

Is exactly that.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I think there is too much reliance on some paper work that was created 235+ years ago.

 

[Grahambo]

Lol. I'm more or less being retarded.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Which one is it?

 

[Grahambo]

Which one is it?

Can it be both?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I don't know, more and less seem diametrically opposed. Unless that is the point.

I used to have enough intelligence for conversations like these, now?

 

[Grahambo]

I don't know, more and less seem diametrically opposed. Unless that is the point.

I used to have enough intelligence for conversations like these, now?

Yes. That's the entire point.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I always find that hilarious. And it's funniest because it's true... in a society where you can no longer completely fail and/or die by being irresponsible (i.e. there is always a safety net for you no matter how much you screw up) then there is no longer natural curb to stupidity/irresponsibility. The average IQ in the US (and the world) has been on a slow decline for decades.

How the world's IQ is in decline - National cognitive science | Examiner.com

Supposedly the smart folks ain't having too many youngins no mo.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Supposedly the smart folks ain't having too many youngins no mo.

That is eugenics, and the concepts behind it have been disproven scientifically. Besides who decides who is smart. The irony is in America "waspish" denizens consider themselves to be the smart ones. They claim that people of color are not being inferred to be of inferior intellect but it is the same thing my grandparents generation, the "dumb micks ran into" in their day.

Anywhere in the world they "know" that white middle class Americans are stupider than shiit, and lazy too. That puts public opinion at about 5 billion to 100 million! (5,000: 1) In fact, to carry the whole thing to its preposterous ironic pinnacle, the major propaganda out of the Third Reich was exactly that, Americans were soft, stupid and lazy. It made no difference if they entered the war; this was brought to you by the Nazi fascists, they didn't originate eugenics, they just took it to new heights!

Brought to you by the "American Breeder’s Association -- the first eugenic body in the U.S., established in 1906 under the direction of biologist Charles B. Davenport. The ABA was formed specifically to “investigate and report on heredity in the human race, and emphasize the value of superior blood and the menace to society of inferior blood.” Membership included Alexander Graham Bell, Stanford president David Starr Jordan and Luther Burbank."

(Nazi's got it from us, see how well it has worked for the United States in the past 110 years. My take; it is just another way for people to bitch, indirectly expressing their racism in a politically correct way.)

 

[Irish Houstonian]

That is eugenics, and the concepts behind it have been disproven scientifically...

I think you're mixing your science, but in any event it sounds like you and the author of this article have a lot to discuss...

The notion that intelligence across the world may be in decline was first inferred by Lentz (1927) in the U.S., who made an observation that intelligent couples were having fewer kids than those with average intelligence. This conjecture has been confirmed by studies like that of Hernstein and Murray (1994), who demonstrated that in the U.S. females with an average IQ of 111 had 1.6 children, whereas females with an average IQ of 81 had 2.6 children.

The link between high IQ and fewer kids is known as dysgenic fertility. Because intelligence to an extent is heritable, it was postulated that intelligence across the world may be in decline. When empirical studies measuring intelligence of people across the world were conducted it was discovered that intelligence across the world was actually rising. This phenomenon is now known as the Flynn effect due to extensive work done by Flynn (1984) in confirming the aforementioned phenomena.

 

[irishpat183]

People are getting dumber and dumber because they watch too much TV and don't read enough. Parents don't raise their kids, and dumb people are having too many of them because the government pays you to pop them out.


It's really that simple.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I think you're mixing your science, but in any event it sounds like you and the author of this article have a lot to discuss...

Quote:
The notion that intelligence across the world may be in decline was first inferred by Lentz (1927) in the U.S., who made an observation that intelligent couples were having fewer kids than those with average intelligence. This conjecture has been confirmed by studies like that of Hernstein and Murray (1994), who demonstrated that in the U.S. females with an average IQ of 111 had 1.6 children, whereas females with an average IQ of 81 had 2.6 children.

The link between high IQ and fewer kids is known as dysgenic fertility. Because intelligence to an extent is heritable, it was postulated that intelligence across the world may be in decline. When empirical studies measuring intelligence of people across the world were conducted it was discovered that intelligence across the world was actually rising. This phenomenon is now known as the Flynn effect due to extensive work done by Flynn (1984) in confirming the aforementioned phenomena.



Look at the disclaimer in the text you quote.

Point is these are people that make a living off of a hypothesis which translates into a lifetime of grants.

Intelligence is to a degree inheritable.

Intelligence is balanced within society, so less can give rise to more.

Intelligence, more specifically our big brains, are developed by repetition. Activities can be performed to increase over the generations "IQ."

IQ is overrated as the be all and end all of intelligence. Most modern experts accept the multi facet aspect of genius.

The blind spot in the so called science is the cultural and normative bias, that is inevitably applied.

 

[autry_denson]

I always find that hilarious. And it's funniest because it's true... in a society where you can no longer completely fail and/or die by being irresponsible (i.e. there is always a safety net for you no matter how much you screw up) then there is no longer natural curb to stupidity/irresponsibility. The average IQ in the US (and the world) has been on a slow decline for decades.

How the world's IQ is in decline - National cognitive science | Examiner.com

I don't know if this is sarcastic or not, but just so we're all on the same page: the best measures of what I'll call IQ, but could also be called general intelligence, g, cognitive skills, etc indicate very clearly that IQ has been rising steadily over time for all groups. Humans are much more "intelligent" than they used to be, mainly because of improvements in health, nutrition and some argue b/c of long-term improvements in schooling and long-term but very steady reductions in violence among humans.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...Look at the disclaimer in the text you quote.

Point is these are people that make a living off of a hypothesis which translates into a lifetime of grants.

Intelligence is to a degree inheritable.

Intelligence is balanced within society, so less can give rise to more.

Intelligence, more specifically our big brains, are developed by repetition. Activities can be performed to increase over the generations "IQ."

IQ is overrated as the be all and end all of intelligence. Most modern experts accept the multi facet aspect of genius.

The blind spot in the so called science is the cultural and normative bias, that is inevitably applied.

One thing's for sure -- my mom should have had fewer kids, because I'm totally confused as to what we're disagreeing over, if anything.

 

[Buster Bluth]

People are getting dumber and dumber because they watch too much TV and don't read enough.

I strongly disagree.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

One thing's for sure -- my mom should have had fewer kids, because I'm totally confused as to what we're disagreeing over, if anything.

The article that you quoted, which shows it's own logical exception to its results, and the notion that your mother should have had fewer kids.

You are fine.

The fact that we can place a cultural value, call that intelligence, and then say if we stop those people that don't exhibit that value from breeding we can stop that and increase intelligence. That premise, which is the core of eugenics, has been disproved since the late 20's, or nearly 90 years. But those that want to manipulate others (all of us) keep bringing it up, playing to our natural racist tendencies. It is quite a manipulation, with quite an end game.

 

[irishpat183]

I strongly disagree.

I think we're in an age of being spoonfed everything. And most of it is crap.

The WRONG info is being fed to us 24/7 by the TMZ's and MTV's of the world. We glamorize being stupid through watchin the Kardashians/Hiltons (act like a whore and you'll be rich and famous!) and Teen Mom (look how cool it is to be knocked up and in high school!).

I also think that this information age has crippled people socially. Everything is done through email and text.


..uggh...I'm just ranting but these are some things I see that I believe are contributing to a dumber society

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I think we're in an age of being spoonfed everything. And most of it is crap.

The WRONG info is being fed to us 24/7 by the TMZ's and MTV's of the world. We glamorize being stupid through watchin the Kardashians/Hiltons (act like a whore and you'll be rich and famous!) and Teen Mom (look how cool it is to be knocked up and in high school!).

I also think that this information age has crippled people socially. Everything is done through email and text.


..uggh...I'm just ranting but these are some things I see that I believe are contributing to a dumber society

Now that is something I can agree with pretty much soup to nuts! Here are the highlights that I can agree with (100%); wrong values, spoon fed 24/7, socially crippled(not cool), email and text, dumber society!

 

[Grahambo]

From welfare to TMZ to the ability to sue everyone and anyone for anything, this world is as soft as a batch of homemade chocolate chip cookies.

 

[greyhammer90]

I think we're in an age of being spoonfed everything. And most of it is crap.

The WRONG info is being fed to us 24/7 by the TMZ's and MTV's of the world. We glamorize being stupid through watchin the Kardashians/Hiltons (act like a whore and you'll be rich and famous!) and Teen Mom (look how cool it is to be knocked up and in high school!).

I also think that this information age has crippled people socially. Everything is done through email and text.


..uggh...I'm just ranting but these are some things I see that I believe are contributing to a dumber society

Now that is something I can agree with pretty much soup to nuts! Here are the highlights that I can agree with (100%); wrong values, spoon fed 24/7, socially crippled(not cool), email and text, dumber society!

From welfare to TMZ to the ability to sue everyone and anyone for anything, this world is as soft as a batch of homemade chocolate chip cookies.

Tell us how it used to be better.

 

[irishpat183]

Tell us how it used to be better.

I couldn't tell you about back then other than what my parents have shared with me.

I'm 31 and I hate my own generation. It's sad.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

My personal experience is that the smart kids are still getting smarter, there is just a smaller proportion of smart kids. Or a larger proportion of non-intellectuals.

The old man in me (kids these days!) wants to blame social networking -- it creates obsession over emulating lifestyles to the exclusion of intellectual pursuits.

You just can't get much mental stimuli when you're spending all day showing everyone in your network how you partied on a boat that one time.

 

[Grahambo]

I couldn't tell you about back then other than what my parents have shared with me.

I'm 31 and I hate my own generation. It's sad.

I'm 26 and pretty much agree. The things my peers do these days is just mind boggling.

My personal experience is that the smart kids are still getting smarter, there is just a smaller proportion of smart kids. Or a larger proportion of non-intellectuals.

The old man in me (kids these days!) wants to blame social networking -- it creates obsession over emulating lifestyles to the exclusion of intellectual pursuits.

You just can't get much mental stimuli when you're spending all day showing everyone in your network how you partied on a boat that one time.

The rise of the machines!

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

the sweeping generalizations on trends in intelligence based solely on "personal experience" is astounding. shall we acknowledge that our personal experiences are inherently limited in revealing truth about things as complicated as social trends?

also, am i the only one who has noticed there's a debate over the relevance of IQ testing and the sources of decreased interest in academia in a thread titled "know your rights"?

objection your honor...relevance

 

[NOLAIrish]

the sweeping generalizations on trends in intelligence based solely on "personal experience" is astounding. shall we acknowledge that our personal experiences are inherently limited in revealing truth about things as complicated as social trends?

It's also bizarre that quite a number of the anecdotes appear to have been given in support of the article Lax posted, an article that actually puts the lie to each of those stories. If y'all read it again, the article cites a set of studies which provide evidence that we should be experiencing stable or increased population IQ, depending on which studies reflect our particular social sphere. It's a sort of "potential IQ" -- what the author refers to as "genotypic IQ" -- that's declining, but that effect will not translate into an actual felt decline until external promoters of IQ (e.g. nutrition, education) undergo such diminution of return that they no longer make up for the decline in potential IQ.

also, am i the only one who has noticed there's a debate over the relevance of IQ testing and the sources of decreased interest in academia in a thread titled "know your rights"?

objection your honor...relevance

I took it as a sign that the original topic had run its course.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

the sweeping generalizations on trends in intelligence based solely on "personal experience" is astounding. shall we acknowledge that our personal experiences are inherently limited in revealing truth about things as complicated as social trends?

also, am i the only one who has noticed there's a debate over the relevance of IQ testing and the sources of decreased interest in academia in a thread titled "know your rights"?

objection your honor...relevance

Lookie, lookie, everyone! I don't believe in sweeping generalizations. But I do believe there is an attempt to artificially dumb people down. And all it serves to do is make our society look stupid! Just like the several instances of race bating that can be documented, (African-American, versus Irish-American longshoremen in the late 19th century, promoted racial destabilization in the 60's and 70's). This is how people stay in control. Turning one against another. I really like most of the young people I know once they get the tech toys out of their a$ses. I have met some really smart innovative, honorable, tough, independent minded young people. My generation mother green had nothing on Grahambo's, much as I like to dog him, he he.

And the obvious link is the word "Know." There are manipulations going on out the ying yang. On of the most prevalent is the people that speak loudly about what the founding fathers actually "believed." Or what the clear intent of documents written 235 years ago was, as Grahambo pointed out. "Hey dude, you have the right to openly carry a firearm whenever you want and it is the government that is trying to regulate your freedom away" is among them.

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

Lookie, lookie, everyone! I don't believe in sweeping generalizations. But I do believe there is an attempt to artificially dumb people down. And all it serves to do is make our society look stupid! Just like the several instances of race bating that can be documented, (African-American, versus Irish-American longshoremen in the late 19th century, promoted racial destabilization in the 60's and 70's). This is how people stay in control. Turning one against another. I really like most of the young people I know once they get the tech toys out of their a$ses. I have met some really smart innovative, honorable, tough, independent minded young people. My generation mother green had nothing on Grahambo's, much as I like to dog him, he he.

And the obvious link is the word "Know." There are manipulations going on out the ying yang. On of the most prevalent is the people that speak loudly about what the founding fathers actually "believed." Or what the clear intent of documents written 235 years ago was, as Grahambo pointed out. "Hey dude, you have the right to openly carry a firearm whenever you want and it is the government that is trying to regulate your freedom away" is among them.

right on. good points.

 

[irishpat183]

Lookie, lookie, everyone! I don't believe in sweeping generalizations. But I do believe there is an attempt to artificially dumb people down. And all it serves to do is make our society look stupid! Just like the several instances of race bating that can be documented, (African-American, versus Irish-American longshoremen in the late 19th century, promoted racial destabilization in the 60's and 70's). This is how people stay in control. Turning one against another. I really like most of the young people I know once they get the tech toys out of their a$ses. I have met some really smart innovative, honorable, tough, independent minded young people. My generation mother green had nothing on Grahambo's, much as I like to dog him, he he.

And the obvious link is the word "Know." There are manipulations going on out the ying yang. On of the most prevalent is the people that speak loudly about what the founding fathers actually "believed." Or what the clear intent of documents written 235 years ago was, as Grahambo pointed out. "Hey dude, you have the right to openly carry a firearm whenever you want and it is the government that is trying to regulate your freedom away" is among them.

So you'd rather just take our governments word for it and everytime new legislation passes, you assume they know what's best?


I'd rather "believe" the intent of those docs wasn't to allow government to decide what is best for it's citizens. It was to protect us from government (which is exactly what those docs were intended to do)

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

So you'd rather just take our governments word for it and everytime new legislation passes, you assume they know what's best?


I'd rather "believe" the intent of those docs wasn't to allow government to decide what is best for it's citizens. It was to protect us from government (which is exactly what those docs were intended to do)

i recognize your concern over protection from the government, but how do you propose that we resolve the issue of the intent of the founding fathers? does intent fall by the wayside if justice fails by way of vast changes in society over hundreds of years? do you decide? do we decide? do we disagree? what is the purpose of government if not to experiment through legislation? accepting the reality that the government needs to legislate, sometimes against incongruous with the express language of the constitution, does not prohibit one from disagreeing with such legislation.

decisions need to be made, for better or worse. those in power have been either elected or appointed via a series of checks and balances that are at some point subject to and influenced by public opinion. or at least predominant public opinion. i'm mostly playing devil's advocate here to get a better understanding of to what degree you stand behind your comment on distrusting the government to decide what's best. the reality is that there are a plethora of opinions on things like gun control.

whose opinion should control the matter? is there ever a point where it's acceptable to diverge from something like the second amendment? many say yes, and some say now. i personally think there's a middle ground. an absolute right to bear arms, of any kind, seems unreasonable to me in light of the innovations leading to high powered full automatic weapons which may not have been considered in the 18th century. i also believe that knee jerk reactions to violent tragedies by legislation can create a slippery slope that over reaches constitutional rights. my point is there's flexibility here, or at least potential for flexibility, such that we're not locked into all or nothing positions.

so again, who decides what is best for us as citizens? do citizens themselves? how is that handled when we disagree? what if your position on something like this is in the minority amongst your fellow citizens? did the founding fathers know what was best for us?

edit: spelling

 

[IndyIrishFan1]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/T5Rb_3GlMTM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>