/sci/ - Science & Math

One can be very certain that there is no such thing. There is a million USD to the person who can demonstrate a such thing. That reward has been waiting for years.

Yes, try the textbook

http://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Applied-Modern-Life-Adjustment/dp/1111186634/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp
;qid=1335675972&sr=8-1

it has alot of stuff on practical matters.

>>4626449
>Better ways to make the populous more intelligent.

There are pretty much no other ways. Intelligence is mostly genetic. A solution will require dealing with genetics. That is, unless we can figure out some super smart method of doing so no one has thought of yet. We are not even close. If we knew such a method, sociologists and other blank slate people wud be all over it. The best they have is something like suggesting that the household # of books is important (and ofc, saying so without properly correcting for genetics). The best they have is stuff like: http://www.rodneytrice.com/sfbb/articles/home.pdf

>>4626338
>Are you not American/English/Australian or other Commonwealth/Former English Colonial Possession?

No, but that has nothing to do with my alternative spellings.

>Your grammar, no offense is fucking shit, and in this era of cheap spellcheck, its.. making it very hard to even take your arguments seriously, but at least if you aren't an English Native, I will tolerate it.

My grammar is fine. Spelling is not the same as grammar. Some of the spellings are nonstandard. This is obviously on purpose (u do realize my name says that i'm a linguist, right?).

>>4626395
Raven's tests are pretty common. But the army test u mention is good too, i.e., has a high g-loading.

>>4626312
>links have shown that IQ turns out to be CULTURIALY BIASED. In the children adopted by farm workers, who say focus more as they say in the American South "Less on Book Learnins, more on hard workin on the farms" they had lower IQs, while the children adopted by middle class families had higher IQs.

There are many IQ tests that are not culturally biased. This has been the case for many decades. One uses such tests when testing non-natives, for instance (say, in different european countries). It is too much work to standardize verbal tests for every language that someone has, hence, the use of non-verbal tests.

>>4626294
>I simply cannot discuss this with you if you aren't willing to consider any evidence otherwise.

There is pretty much no evidence that indicates otherwise. That IQ is highly heritable is accepted even by the relevant scholars with the standard views about race and intelligence, eugenics etc.

>>4626292
But there are lots of diseases where we have identified genes that increase probability (sometimes in Mendelian style). We can start with them. This has nothing to do with designing a master race. In fact, for some diseases (sickle cell anemia), the ones that will benefit the most from it are blacks (since heterozygosity of that gene confers resistance to malaria).

>>4626284
>Good theory, however- what about when their are no real "good" combinations?

Draw more eggs and try again. What else? Besides, remember that one need not necessary pick the absolute best allele combination, just something better than (almost?) pure chance (i.e. normal) combination. If one draws something like 100 eggs (the number Lynn uses as an example) there is a good chance for some good combinations.

>>4626277
>My class GPA on the other hand is slightly above the curve, because it turns out a test is useless in real world applications.

Anecdotes do not matter for correlation. In fact, IQ has lots of real world influence, say, on violent crime.

>>4626276
>L2 environemental intelligence
Eh? U mean emotional intelligence (EQ)? Yeah, no, the data for that are meh. See reviews by Lynn Waterhouse.

>L2 Mismeasure of man
That book is horrible. SJ Gould was a horrible demagogue.

>L2 Abitrariness of IQ tests
No such thing.

>L2 Neuroplasticity
What does that have to do with this?

>L2 Neoteny
What does that have to do with this?

>L2 Different + Useful Talents
Multiple intelligence theory is pseudoscience.

>L2 Human Sociology.
Another field infested with pseudoscience.

>>4626276
>Fucking retard. You're the one that should be sterilized OP. I have an IQ of 176. Clearly you're too short sighted and uneducated on your eugenics / intelligence topic to discuss it.

The base rate of that is 2.0242115e-7 (white male). I never understood why people make up lies about their unusually high IQ's and then post about them online, anonymously. Makes no sense.

>>4626271
It is well known that childhood IQ is more affected by SES than adult IQ. U have not told me anything i didn't know, nor is it relevant.

>Your fourth assumption is true as well. However, this has been true for THOUSANDS of years. Why haven't we all become retarded? In fact, why have we all become much SMARTER than our ancestors? The majority of impoverished people in developed countries are literate. This wasn't the case not even 400 years ago.

No, it has not been the case for thousands of years. It has been the case for perhaps 150 years. Also note that i stated to have a reasonable interpretation. So inb4 someone fails to do that. Since selection for lower intelligence wud happen even if smart and stupid people had the same number of children, but the smart ones were more likely to live to adulthood and have children themselves (this is closer to the actual truth).

>The issue really is much more complex than you've made it out to be.

... If i don't simplify things, it is not possible to talk about it in a single post and people complain about it being too long "TL;DR".
If i make it appropriately short, people say things that u said. Simplification is clearly necessary. The points i mentioned are those that are relevant to the demand.

>>4626267
I don't care much for these psycho-/sociological theories. I care about evidence. I have done plenty of research on this subject.

>>4626250
>IQ doesn't really measure any natural gift. With hardwork you can lift thet thing way up....

Not really, and it is also irrelevant whether or not one can train for the test (one can, but not that much).

Obviously, u are wrong about IQ tests not measuring natural ability. They are very good at that. IQ is mostly heritable ('natural gift').

>>4626243
One does not need a whole model for it. We know that most of the variance in intelligence is due to additive genes, not epigenetics and other fancy stuff. Ofc, if we are to do something like >>4626258 for intelligence, we need to find the genes for intelligence. But one can start working on getting rid of nasty heritable diseases. Even people that dislike IQ-testing etc. agree that it is a good thing, in general.

>>4626233
The best way is the one suggested by Lynn (2001), i.e., take a large sample of eggs from the female and sperm from the male. Fuse them (to form a zygote) and let them divide a bit. Take one of the cells of each zygote and test it for known genes. Select the zygote with the best mix of genes.

>>4626237
>Because they study harder. That is why Asians are usually smarter. It' because they don't go on facebook, they face book and study instead.

No, becus (east) asians are just smarter. They average 105 on tests.

>>4626232
>itt: nazis and shit
U must l2discuss and not make fallacies like this one. Guilt by association.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

>spoiler alert iq is not the best measurement of intelligence, nor was it ever meant to be a whole person thing.

U are just wrong about this. IQ tests are the best way to measure intelligence. No surprise, they are intelligence designed to do so. Duh.

>>4626220
What are u trying to say? Just say it instead of these straw man green text posts. This is /sci/, one shud discuss in a proper way.

>>4626207
It follows trivially from the things mentioned in this thread:

1. Intelligence is very heritable.
2. People lower in intelligence have more children.
3. Any genes for a trait where those who have it have fewer children than those without it tend to become common in the gene pool over time.
4. (2) has been true for many years.

It follows from those 4 propositions given a plausible interpretation.

Many possibilities. U cud also just try to maximize transhumanistic goals by donating alot of money to H+ projects. I know a person that does exactly this.

>>4626170
No need to purge people, genocide style. The only thing needed is the controlled reproduction. It does not have to be state enforced bans (a form of negative eugenics, cf. the relevant terminology). It can be tax cuts for people with good genes, or tax on people with bad genes to reproduce, etc. Many methods.

>>4626185
>IQ hasn't been dropping, retard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

One must untangle the effects of genetic and non-genetic causes. The genetic IQ (called genotypic IQ) has been falling for many years. This is obvious as there is, technically, negative selection pressure for intelligence.