/sci/ - Science & Math

>I would probably be willing to pay good money for a kid with a >160 IQ.

I fucking lol'd. Don't ever have kids, faggot.

>>3768087
>implying that its likly that orphans have high IQs.

IQ isnt random like the 'equal righters' would like you to belive. Its genetic and requires investment for generations.
Unfortunatly as far as evolution is concerned, orphans are on their way out...

>>3768109
Smart parents can die.

>>3768105
I won't. I will adopt one with an IQ over 160 so I can rear him to become the next Einstein.

>>3768109
>Doesn't know the difference between orphanage and foster care

>>3768113
>mfw he becomes an idiot cause you don't know how to raise kids.

>>3768109
>IQ isnt random like the 'equal righters' would like you to belive. Its genetic and requires investment for generations.

I know the research about that. But why do you assume that high IQ people cannot find themselves in poor situations? What if the child was born with a genetic mutation increasing his intelligence?

There are many factors which will leave a large pool of highly intelligent orphans.

>>3768087
autistics and aspies shouldnt be allowed to breed

>>3768113
Yeh, as i said before, here
>>3768109

You probably arnt capable of that bc you probably cant rear yourself to be a good 160...

Infact the idea that you didnt allready know the previous sentence, and this one following it allready, suggests you arnt as smart as i am...

>>3768134
>You probably arnt capable of that bc you probably cant rear yourself to be a good 160...

Erm, yeah, that's not how intelligence works.

>Infact the idea that you didnt allready know the previous sentence, and this one following it allready, suggests you arnt as smart as i am...

Can't tell if trolling or serious...

>implying IQ tests matter

or do I just say this to comfort myself

Why don't we just have all orphanages make their kids go through shit like dual-n back and take ADHD meds?

Fuck, I can have every interesting book on a 32gb thumb drive. 2gb would probably be more complete books than I will read in my life.

Can't wait til computer just get cheaper and cheaper, and of course batteries and shit improves. Eventually we'll be able to buy $50 tablets with 1ghz processors with high-resolution screens and batteries that last for 4-12 hours of constant use.

>>3768129
>There are many factors which will leave a large pool of highly intelligent orphans.

There are some rare factors that leave a small pool of highly intelligent orphans.
*fix'd

>>3768129
I am aware of these possibilities, also that kids could have genetic mutations for other things besides intelligence which outclass their rivals.

However this is akin to acquisition of DNA and could lead to form of slavery.

I also don’t believe in rehabilitation, if a kid finds themselves in a bad situation, who’s to say that this is not natural selective. The last thing we need is a highly intelligent aberrant mutant.

I believe in a sink or swim approach to evolution, anyone who attempts to aid each other is most likely doing it to help themselves, that is; acquire ownership of people. This is simultaneously why I am against socialism, because allowing the state to take every responsibility is a form of this acquisition.

>>3768160
can't tell if trolling or just stupid.
The fact of the matter is that natural evolution isn't exactly the fastest method of evolution. So while you are correct human interference can slow it down, the right human intervention can speed it up. So just letting intelligent people succumb to natural causes would not be as efficient as helping them to increase the intelligence of the human race.

Because funding?

>>3768160
You contradict yourself. The kid is not necessarily in a bad situation if he has a beneficial genotype. If anything, in the Darwinian view, he and his genes should be saved from all negative external circumstances.

>The last thing we need is a highly intelligent aberrant mutant

The latest research shows that genetically well adjusted people (usually intelligent) can recover from bad histories.

>>3768160
>mfw idiot doesn't understand that humans are not lions. We were apes who traveled in packs and gathered resources.
There are different factors that result in natural selection within our community, but the aim of the community is to progress together. Society was created to protect each other, dumbass.

>>3768204
*were not tigers
Fix'd that for myself.

>>3768183
Sure, we can speed up evolution, we can do all kinds of things. But most likly what you end up with is a small group of selfish people highly specialised in one thing. Like a dog pedigree with one major talent. If you think intellect should be that major talent then this is still an aberration.

Its more a question of balance, and who should decide? Well, the environment should decide. But given that humans have completely taken over natural selection so that we essentially are our own predators should we still promote intellect and understanding? Perhaps. At least you'll be able to understand what im talking about here. But more than likly you'll end up with one side of humanity opposing the other as predators, like democrats and republicans.

Its also good to remember that IQ increases by about 5pts ever generation. So, lets say 10 generations from now, the IQ of this orphan might not seem so impressive in retrospect. But we'll most likly still have his genetics kicking about, and chances are good that whatever landed him in the orphanage has ceased to be an evolutionary force, so we all might have inherited it. After all, if you take away the evolutionary pressure removing something it has nowhere else to go by mainstream.

>>3768225
>whatever landed him in the orphanage
>factor of natural selection
>evolutionary force
You mean like his parents dying in a car accident that wasn't their fault?
Yeah, I saw a documentary about gazelles and car accidents the other day.

>>3768196
Thats not the way it works buddy,

Sickle cell anaemia provides a benefit, but only one… resistance to malaria… it still ends up harming the person.

>The latest research shows that genetically well adjusted people (usually intelligent) can recover from bad histories.

I really think thats a complex question. Its essentially hanging over them, waiting to be switched on, it might never be removed... and what happens then? Do we just keep adding more to the DNA? I dont think anyone knows for sure.

>>3768234
>reaction time

How about they were doing something else... lets say... having hereditary seizures. That IQ of 160 will probably be 100 by the time hes 40 or so...

>>3768240
>Sickle cell anaemia provides a benefit, but only one… resistance to malaria… it still ends up harming the person.

Are you serious? You're really committing the slippery slope argument by suggesting that having a high IQ child "might have other mutations like diseases." Why apply this to IQ only, then? There is an equal likelihood of mutations in any situation; it's not exclusive to high IQ individuals.

Plus, OBVIOUSLY, we would know if the child has any deleterious mutations by fucking blood tests and physical examinations.

Your argument is flawed. There is no way to get around the idea which should be obvious, that a high IQ child will have a high IQ and be intelligent.

>>3768273
>equal likelihood of mutations in any situation
Yes, in an orphanage where we remove the evolutionary pressure

>Plus, OBVIOUSLY, we would know if the child has any deleterious mutations by fucking blood tests and physical examinations.

Impying that our present science is better than evolution and natural selection. Essentially you propose unnatural selection, or biased selection.

>Your argument is flawed.
>There is no way to get around the idea which should be obvious, that a high IQ child will have a high IQ and be intelligent.
Thats not what i said, what i said is;
"The last thing we need is a highly intelligent aberrant mutant"
And
"Like a dog pedigree with one major talent"

Increasing the size of your overall gene pool isnt bad... but breaking natural selection to do it will only fill that gene pool with bad genes... I guess your talking about gene salvage, but even then the aformentioned breaking natural selection...

>>3768248
If we're on the topic of what-ifs, then what if they were both on a plane and the pilot fucked up?
Face it. All death is not warranted, and we have kids who have shitty lives through no fault of their own.

>>3768342
>trusting pilot with life

Your life is your own responsibility. Face it.

I don’t care if it was cosmic ray charles, I don’t care if it was GOD. The procedure is the same; survive.

>>3768113
>I will adopt a kid so I can rear him

>>3768359
You must get all the ladies.

IQ definitely isn't random.

Mines 131-137 depending on which test.

But my mom also read to me 4 hours a day and I was raised in a bi-lingual household. Neither of my parents are really brilliant.

>>3768662
Bah, different areas of the brain...

>>3768662
and now you spend your time on 4chan.

>nope

"Orphanages" (ie. government social-services agencies) don't test the IQ of children they are trying to adopt out, since most of those children are Black, and nobody wants to know how low their IQs really are. In other words, when you get a Black child via your state or county agency, you already know he or she is fairly low on the IQ scale, since Blacks in general have low IQs when compared to Whites.

It's the same principle when you don't obtain a performance report for a shitty used car that you bought for $500. You already know it's a shitty used car.

>>3768689
>anyone who spends their time doing something pointless, no matter for what length of time they participate in such activities has an IQ sub 131

its what you implied, and its stupid

This is what ops retarded genius looks like.

>>3768706
Oh. you dropped a few more IQ points with that response.

I'm starting to question if you ever come close to deviating from the mean.

>>3768698
Not if their blonde, in the US they sell the blonde ones.

Its been reported many times.

Guess what, it gets worse, their more eager to take kids away from their pairents if they think they can sell them on.

>>3768698
>most of those children are Black, and nobody wants to know how low their IQs really are.

There will definitely be varying IQs among the black children. That information would still be relevant for potential adoptive parents; it's best to choose a child with an IQ at least above 95.