/sci/ - Science & Math

I'm considering bringing this over to the likes of /soc/. Please for the love of progress will someone or preferably 15+ people just say yes I think this will lead to a brighter future, or no this is unethical and will lead to more chromosome related diseases/syndrome, SOMETHING, ANYTHING.

tl;dr Bump

OP might kinda have a point, but we'd be living in some totally fucked up nazi state if the government is allowed to just force people to be made infertile against their will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8fm3Z7jgWM&ob=av2e

go back to 1920s

Those babies born 3 months early that end up living?
In the natural world, they would surely die.
We are letting in half formed humans that can never be healthy or normal.
This is the end of the human race.

>>4626047
Fake and gay !

tl;dr
Firstly IQ is derieved in such a way that 100 is allways mean IQ no matter what.
Secondly the principle of "evolving" as in: smarter people having smarter kids is proven only to the extent that more educated people tell their kids to be more educated.

This result is rather well known. It has been this way for perhaps as much as 150 years. See Richard Lynn's books on the subject: Dysgenics, and Eugenics.

Also: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

>>4626143
Trust me, If I was fake and homosexual I think the fact that human intelligence made an A.I capable of homoerotic feelings would diminish all fear I had for the future intellect of my supreme creators- Also which youtube idiot coined that term? I know they are an idiot. I've seen them but I can't recall which one.

As "inhumane" as it is to comparatively evaluate human beings and hold one life as quantitatively superior to another, it sure would help.

But it's a slippery slope. Who would decide what needs to be purged? Why just unintelligent people? Why not also handicapped people? Why not anyone who society has to care for? But then what about people who contributed to society in their youth and became disabled in their old age, surely society can care for them. What about when intelligence and ability are in conflict? What about victims of circumstance, people with high IQs who are floundering because they haven't had the opportunity to attend school?

tl;dr >>>/pol/

>>4626137
>OP might kinda have a point, but we'd be living in some totally fucked up nazi state if the government is allowed to just force people to be made infertile against their will.

This is just wrong. In fact eugenic laws were popular in pre-WW2 industrial countries. They were used to force sterilization of <70 IQ people. Generally, this is a good outcome (that they don't have children) since such children are a burden to society. First, the parents will probably not be able to raise them properly (typically, it is a sole female). Second, since intelligence is very heritable, the children will likely also be <70 IQ and thus probably not be able to even get a job. They will have to live of others and pretty much not add anything good to the world.

Perhaps it is worth the trade off. I very much dislike giving a state such power since politicians are known to be dishonest or stupid or both. But the question is whether the alternative is worse.

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

Also, evolution doesn't have a direction. It can't "reverse".

>>4626143
>Firstly IQ is derieved in such a way that 100 is allways mean IQ no matter what.

Only within a population. There are differences between populations even tho one can standardize a test so that the mean of any given population = 100.

>Secondly the principle of "evolving" as in: smarter people having smarter kids is proven only to the extent that more educated people tell their kids to be more educated.

This is just wrong. Intelligence is very heritable. Smarter parents have smarter kids becus the genes for intelligence are passed on. This is common knowledge among experts in the field (psychometricians). These social constructivist theories are almost always wrong.

>>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.

>>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.

>>4626194
>The genetic IQ (called genotypic IQ) has been falling for many years.

Yeah, no. I'm gonna have to ask you for proof on that.

>>4626177
>70 IQ......kill it it's good for you...
.....
....
>My parents were told I would'nt speak.
' Jacob Barnett

>>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.

>>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.

>>4626047
itt: nazis and shit
spoiler alert iq is not the best measurement of intelligence, nor was it ever meant to be a whole person thing.

also, eugenics trolls, and what the hell gives you the right (also by some standards, you post on 4chan, that makes you subhuman, etc.

>>4626170
I've had a long think about many of these things you mention. I never said they would be killed, In all fairness genocide is pointless in achieving any goal. I merely mean these genes will be disgarded. The iq tests would be carried out in a schooling enviroment, all testing would be carried out by social worker or psychologist figures, so those who perhaps don't test well in linguistics will be tested using puzzles such as using cubes with half red/white sides to create predetermined shapes and images. I myself have done detailed IQ tests in the past, and find that education wasn't relevant to the tests I took. It was based on ability. As for the disabled, for those who cannot walk or have missing limbs: This will be the future, with all this extra intelligence running about I'm sure we can make/clone arms/legs/working tongue/opposable thumbs/etc. As for people with syndromes, perhaps genetic testing can be done so that if it seems the likely hood of perhaps, of a child with the incredibly dibilitating huntingsons, being born- scientists could perhaps remove the responsible genes, allowing the parents to have a healthy child. In my eyes if someone in the mindset of my self was responsible for any/all of this the main philosophy would be prevention, not extermination.

>>4626190
>Smarter parents heva smarter kids.
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.

But then again I don't feel like loosing a discussion with another one of "I can into academia because my superior genes hurr"-ers.

>>4626170
As for the elderly, I personally have great empathy for the old, being brought up by my grandparents I find the extermination of old people would be redundant, They are culturally valuable and unable to have children, it's not as if they are going to, actually no that's a great point. With the young not having as many children there will be more old than young. I think after 30 years this problem will have taken care of itself, besides those infertile children will be old and able to take care of their parents. I suppose later on for another 30 years there will be a period of there being a lot of development in machinery or drugs that would make being old and infirm easier than ever. Good points, Exactly what I wanted from this thread

>>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.

>>4626224
hell, there isn't a whole gene model yet, its not like Mendel's Peas, literally we don't understand genes, and hell epigenetics alone is a fucking game changer wrt genes, making the conventional Human Genome Project horribly incomplete. Also, lol inbreeding issues etc.

>>4626238
Also, may I just add, eyes on Japan, what I just said is happening there already.

>>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.

>>4626231

Oh, so sorry, didn't know it was you Sire!


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

Also, there are a lot of people who seem like blubbering idiots but are instead geniuses destroyed by societies "stickies" of emptying ones frustrations.

But, again. Too many people on this board are of the type "I'm superior because I into academia".

OP, you're such a jack ass that I can't even see straight.

Humans are not evolving to become smarter. We are evolving to become more communal. The people who survive are people who know how to depend on one another. And we already have natural selection for that in the form of:

1) Fashion
2) Memes
3) Fads

People who can't keep up are considered autistic and have no chance of getting laid. Simple as that. Unless you think having a society of autists is a good idea.

>>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.

I sense some bias from those I have picked up on to be a little bit on the slower side of the spectrum (excluding one very likely stupid anon very much in favor of this?)

Self preservation is in play then, you selfish degenerates

>>4626251


CASE CLOSED. PROOF, PROOF, PROOF, PROOF.

>>4626248
I know my data, so you may wish to do your own inquiry. There was once a tribe in Japan seperated from the rest of population with...an IQ way less than 100.......they fit in the average picture of a Japanese today. But that's not my point the point is manly, that people wan't to believe they are superior because they understand things if they are properly explained to them. Educated individuals often believe it is their "natural gift" of higher inteligence that is moving them ahead and not the extra hours invested as well as the self discipline during those hours (often also the personal interest).

>>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.

>>4626224
>>4626224
>>4626224

For your first assumption, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

>A study (1999) by Capron and Duyme of French children adopted between the ages of four and six examined the influence of socioeconomic status (SES). The children's IQs initially averaged 77, putting them near retardation. Most were abused or neglected as infants, then shunted from one foster home or institution to the next. Nine years later after adoption, when they were on average 14 years old, they retook the IQ tests, and all of them did better. The amount they improved was directly related to the adopting family's socioeconomic status. "Children adopted by farmers and laborers had average IQ scores of 85.5; those placed with middle-class families had average scores of 92. The average IQ scores of youngsters placed in well-to-do homes climbed more than 20 points, to 98."
>and this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Correlations_between_IQ_and_degree_of_genetic_relate
dness

Your second assumption is correct.

Your third assumption makes sense.

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.

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

For children

L2 environemental intelligence
L2 Mismeasure of man
L2 Abitrariness of IQ tests
L2 Neuroplasticity
L2 Neoteny
L2 Different + Useful Talents
L2 Human Sociology.

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.

>>4626242
i literally have an IQ of 125. Not genious, yet not the dumbest person. My class GPA on the other hand is slightly above the curve, because it turns out a test is useless in real world applications. Some "smart" people are the ones I know getting DUIs and saying "I won't get caught using drugs."

Also, fun things like cultural biases (why does a SAT test need to mention things like say a regatta) and the fact that poverty is a HUGE factor in poorer standardized tests period means you are saying "Eat the poor, fuck a society based on equality, lets make a master race, and the Morlock race can just.. fix our cars and what not.

>>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').

>>4626258
Good theory, however- what about when their are no real "good" combinations? Perhaps one set suggest high intelligence but also maybe trisomy 13? Qualities like intelligence take A LOT of genes to make.

>>4626251
Much closer to reallity, but I think the classical western conformism (and yes, we basically all have the ability of that) is going downhill. They fuck around, get pregnant, give birht, grow old, regret and die......And they give birth normally just once.....so......no......that's a ......well......dead end.

Also it appears that autists have the ability to get laid as well. People on /sci/ are not virgin because of supposed autism or anything. It's something else, comletely....

>>4626284
And, if anything, I'd rather wait for my Intel Core Extreme e^i Quantum Planch-Computer substrate before we even start thinking of designing master race (because genetic combinations are so complex that we have no idea at least with people what causes some genetic disorders, and why say cancer develops).

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

>>4626281
>Obviously, u are wrong about IQ tests not measuring natural ability. They are very good at that. IQ is mostly heritable ('natural gift').

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

OP, leaving aside the whole eugenics and IQ thing you're working from a horrible premise. Evolution isn't a linear system of levelling up traits that you personally like. If the environment demands lower IQs, lower IQs will evolve. I personally have no strong opinion either way on this yet but don't hang your opinions on some kind of natural law.

>>4626276
176 on which scale? There is a man with an IQ of 197, but on the more mainstream scale this is only average. So please tell me how thorough you were in pulling those results out of your ass, and which ONL1NE 1Q T3ST 4 FREE 4 U you used so I can point, laugh, and feel depressed at your short comings along with your parents/all others that share your genome- Besides you can't read, I called it a question of ethics, not a thing I want to happen.

Also, I smell american

>>4626289
Uh, well we have shown in for example
>>4626271
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.

Turns out, just like how everything is politics, where you are raised, which is a HUGE thing related to culture matters the most. If you have a culture that doesn't take educational matters seriously, then... the children (who as
>>4626276
pointed out) are hugly neuroplastic since their neurons are still developing, raised in enviroments, with lower quality food and medical care having lower IQs, you can't just say HURR THESE ARE INFERIOR RACE PURGE FOR THE MASTER RACE etc.

muh dick nigga!

>>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.

I suppose if we kill all the insects we too will fall. Idiots are less than insects, so in fact don't fuck them.

>>4626296
Thanks for mentioning the classic fallity of "Evolution must evolve up" bu the way Anon. Evolution has no "Goal," there is no "God of Evolution" directing it, hell, a good example is the issue of British Moths and Coal Mines, there was no direction of evolution, just humans doing their own thing.

>>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.

>>4626318
Are you not American/English/Australian or other Commonwealth/Former English Colonial Possession? 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.

>>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.

>>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.

This is a troll thread
>reverse evolution
>of course I'm aware Darwin's theory has many flaws in the first place
>In fact the low achievers reproduce more, due to a job that gives them plenty of time, pure idiocy, or perhaps a misunderstanding of how condoms work
>making sure perhaps every stupid gene has been wiped out
>I may pose this same question on other boards
>>dat link
>>dat picture

>>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.

Hello thread, OP here. Please stop fighting we aren't trying to decrease my faith in us all. Just stay calm, polite and eloquent on this thread and we could just bathe in the progress made.

Perhaps a second mere thought should be introduced, Maybe evolution, or ecosytems in general for accounting for overpopulation/to much dna from one set of parents. Generally gay people are the younger members of the family. Made to not reproduce later. Regulation of population? If it happens in nature sure fuck it we can help the cause. Oh my god turning the idiots gay. Okay not infertile just gay, PLAGUE of gay. Gay everywhere. gay gay a gay gay

>>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).

>>4626348
Show me a standardized test for intelligence that doesn't have a odd bias, (mentioning things based on the stereotypical "white anglo saxon protestant" lifestyle (Disclaimer, I am black, BUT thanks to the magic of being part of the post colonial overlord class, I lived that, worked with them, hang out with em etc.) the closest one I can think of is the ASAVB and that is to test for military aptitude (more or less, can you handle math and learning things at a nonstandard rate).

A civilian example is, there was a test for engineering on mechanical principals, which used a car transmission system, and for some odd reason, a lot of women kept doing poorly on it.

After a quick rewrite (the question was the same numbers and concept) to make the question about a bycle chain, suddenly the women's scores normalized, and the men's scores remained the same. Turns out culture shapes the way we think, and even test!

>>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.

>>4626378

>>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.

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

>reverse evolution

Knowledge=/=Intelligence

You all should know that.

All knowledge is essentially the same, 3 minutes worth of dialogue from the office and a three minute sermon on m-theory or the observer theory are the same. Get that into your heads. Intelligence is the ability to use and understand information.

>>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?).

>But in the modern age there is no pressure to evolve

what am i reading. get out you moron

Okay, Okay gentlemen calm down.

Better ways to make the populous more intelligent.

(No not knowledgeable!! Not education related)

>>4626047

Dysgenics doesn't work.

Also, fads, memes, and fascist will create forced socionormativism on the part of individual's interactions. Then national socialism will create a better humanity.

>>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

>>4626251
Doesn't feel good to be part of a dying breed.

>>4626251
This was very interesting and it kinda makes sense. Did you come up with this hypothesis by yourself? If not, where can I read more of it?