Guest
On Thursday, 25 July 2019 20:53:59 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:
but you don't know
but you don't know
C
Clifford Heath
Guest
On 26/7/19 2:09 am, George Herold wrote:
Yes, fully aware of that, but it doesn't scale up beyond being a local
mysticism until you start to write things down. The "organised" in
organised religion depends on knowledge that is saved in semi-permanent
form outside of any individual life. Before that, it's whatever is
re-invented by each generation.
Exactly. The foxes had the strongest possible individual pressure being
applied. But here we're talking about a rather nebulous advantage to a
society more than to just an individual, an advantage that relies on
developing culture to take advantage of it. It's not much of a gradient.
How? Different races are smart in different ways, and for different
reasons. It's not clear that any objective IQ test could be constructed.
It's not clear to me that civilisation advantages intelligence, or we
wouldn't have Trumpism. Intelligence advantages civilisation, but that
doesn't select for individual genes; it's a nebulous selective effect.
Our reptilian brain selects for power, chooses to side with a likely
winner, then our rational brain is left struggling to concoct a story
about how that was a rational choice. We simply aren't rational beings,
but rationalising beings.
BTW the "problem" I see with religion is that it relies on
self-deception, so there is a whole class of ideas that cannot be
considered without a very rare sophistication (c.f.the Jesuits).
Clifford Heath.
Yes, fully aware of that, but it doesn't scale up beyond being a local
mysticism until you start to write things down. The "organised" in
organised religion depends on knowledge that is saved in semi-permanent
form outside of any individual life. Before that, it's whatever is
re-invented by each generation.
Exactly. The foxes had the strongest possible individual pressure being
applied. But here we're talking about a rather nebulous advantage to a
society more than to just an individual, an advantage that relies on
developing culture to take advantage of it. It's not much of a gradient.
How? Different races are smart in different ways, and for different
reasons. It's not clear that any objective IQ test could be constructed.
It's not clear to me that civilisation advantages intelligence, or we
wouldn't have Trumpism. Intelligence advantages civilisation, but that
doesn't select for individual genes; it's a nebulous selective effect.
Our reptilian brain selects for power, chooses to side with a likely
winner, then our rational brain is left struggling to concoct a story
about how that was a rational choice. We simply aren't rational beings,
but rationalising beings.
BTW the "problem" I see with religion is that it relies on
self-deception, so there is a whole class of ideas that cannot be
considered without a very rare sophistication (c.f.the Jesuits).
Clifford Heath.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 6:31:19 PM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't know what? That he offers literally no evidence of this idea other than a couple of discovery channel equivalents? Yes, I do know that.
--
Rick C.
+++ Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Thursday, 25 July 2019 20:53:59 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 3:19:33 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 25/07/19 18:17, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 12:38:24 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
Six(!) generations, in one experiment on foxes.
"Starting from what amounted to a population of wild foxes, within six
generations (6 years in these foxes, as they reproduce annually), selection
for tameness, and tameness alone, produced a subset of foxes that licked
the hand of experimenters, could be picked up and petted, whined when
humans departed, and wagged their tails when humans approached. An
astonishingly fast transformation. Early on, the tamest of the foxes made
up a small proportion of the foxes in the experiment: today they make up
the vast majority."
FFI:
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0090-x
Sounds like an experiment that can't be conducted without impacting the
result by the measurement. Rather than selecting for tameness the
experimenters could have been training the foxes. There are several problems
with this work or at least the report of it which is a far cry from a
research paper.
The first is I don't see a control group mentioned. They should have also
randomly picked another group of foxes and perform everything the same,
handling, testing, selecting, but randomly, not by the results of testing.
Not much to base your opinion on. No evidence this was genetic selection at
all.
From memory of watching a TV programme about it a few decades ago,
many of those points aren't the case.
However, that is to see the trees and miss the wood. The key point
is how fast the changes occurred - much *much* faster than anyone
guessed before they did the experiment. And much faster than people
guess or "want" to believe after hearing about it.
No doubt there is more solid information out there. I can't be
bothered to find it and it wouldn't convince those that don't
want (for whatever reason) to believe it.
Sorry, science does not advance by "I can't be bothered to find it". How fast the changes occurred mean nothing if you don't have control groups and other measures to assure you are measuring what you think you are measuring. The changes occurred faster than what exactly? What is your yardstick for "fast"? Why would you not expect a wild animal, closely related to the dog to be hard to domesticate?
I expect the TV shoe you saw to be much like the article you linked to. Nothing at all like a science report.
but you don't know
Don't know what? That he offers literally no evidence of this idea other than a couple of discovery channel equivalents? Yes, I do know that.
--
Rick C.
+++ Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 25/07/19 20:53, Rick C wrote:
Oh, get a grip and sense of perspective. My post is not
"science", and this is usenet.
Well, doh!
But that kind of criticism is a bit rich coming from someone
that believes the entire world is like suburban USA, as you
repeatedly did in your posts about how easy it is install
charging points for EVs.
Oh, get a grip and sense of perspective. My post is not
"science", and this is usenet.
Well, doh!
But that kind of criticism is a bit rich coming from someone
that believes the entire world is like suburban USA, as you
repeatedly did in your posts about how easy it is install
charging points for EVs.
C
Clifford Heath
Guest
On 26/7/19 10:09 am, Rick C wrote:
One single example of a family of foxes who breed domesticable offspring
is enough to give the lie to the previously "established fact" that
foxes cannot be bred to be tame.
After the initial demonstration, further experiment is needed, but
without it, no experiment would be tried. The same as every other
advancement in science.
How then is this "not science"?
Clifford Heath.
One single example of a family of foxes who breed domesticable offspring
is enough to give the lie to the previously "established fact" that
foxes cannot be bred to be tame.
After the initial demonstration, further experiment is needed, but
without it, no experiment would be tried. The same as every other
advancement in science.
How then is this "not science"?
Clifford Heath.
G
George Herold
Guest
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 3:19:33 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
They also developed floppy ears, and tails? or some other .'dog-like'
thing.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160912-a-soviet-scientist-created-the-only-tame-foxes-in-the-world
First hit looking for tame fox.
GH
I saw a similar program on nature or nova.
They also developed floppy ears, and tails? or some other .'dog-like'
thing.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160912-a-soviet-scientist-created-the-only-tame-foxes-in-the-world
First hit looking for tame fox.
GH
R
Rick C
Guest
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
Not talking about your post. Of course that is not a scientific paper. Duh! I'm talking about the "studies" you cite. Rather than actual papers that properly describe what was done, how it was done and the detailed results, these reports have no value. Your analysis is exactly why the reports are considered "junk" science. You attribute the changes to the behaviors of the foxes to "selection" when there is no evidence this is actually correct. That's the "junk" part of your post.
Lol! I never said anything remotely like that, but I get it. If you can't make your point about this discussion, change to another one.
--
Rick C.
---- Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Not talking about your post. Of course that is not a scientific paper. Duh! I'm talking about the "studies" you cite. Rather than actual papers that properly describe what was done, how it was done and the detailed results, these reports have no value. Your analysis is exactly why the reports are considered "junk" science. You attribute the changes to the behaviors of the foxes to "selection" when there is no evidence this is actually correct. That's the "junk" part of your post.
Lol! I never said anything remotely like that, but I get it. If you can't make your point about this discussion, change to another one.
--
Rick C.
---- Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
R
Rick C
Guest
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 8:42:22 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Initially it was claimed to be proof that tameness can be "selected" for by human selection. I never said the study was not scientific. My only point is that the reports you are using to show the "science" of the study are a magazine article and a TV show.
I maintain that this does not provide enough information to determine if the study does what you claim or not. I've already pointed out two potential issues what were not addressed in the reports.
--
Rick C.
---+ Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Initially it was claimed to be proof that tameness can be "selected" for by human selection. I never said the study was not scientific. My only point is that the reports you are using to show the "science" of the study are a magazine article and a TV show.
I maintain that this does not provide enough information to determine if the study does what you claim or not. I've already pointed out two potential issues what were not addressed in the reports.
--
Rick C.
---+ Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Friday, July 26, 2019 at 2:09:26 AM UTC+10, George Herold wrote:
Sadly, what IQ measures isn't useful intelligence, but rather the capacity to soak up instruction, and churn it out on exam papers.
> Chinese the highest, then Europeans and Africans.
China has a got a particularly dire writing system, which makes it hard to get literate, and hard to stay literate.
Europeans have alphabetic writing systems, which align better with what the human brain can do.
In Africa reading and writing has been confined to the upper classes until quite recently - as it was in Europe and china n ot all that long ago.
> So my idea is that civilization selects for intelligence.
Or rather literacy.
Selecting for the people who can be persuaded to work hard on mastering a bad system. If there was any intelligence involved, they would have adopted an alphabetic writing system as soon as they ran into one.
The Koreans actually did that in 1446, having imported linguists from south India to create the alphabet. They seem to have adopted it officially in 1894.
> (Some people are uncomfortable talking about such things...)
Taking IQ as measure of general intelligence, as opposed to a quick and dirty way of finding out who is likely to make a competent clerk, should make anybody uncomfortable.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Sadly, what IQ measures isn't useful intelligence, but rather the capacity to soak up instruction, and churn it out on exam papers.
> Chinese the highest, then Europeans and Africans.
China has a got a particularly dire writing system, which makes it hard to get literate, and hard to stay literate.
Europeans have alphabetic writing systems, which align better with what the human brain can do.
In Africa reading and writing has been confined to the upper classes until quite recently - as it was in Europe and china n ot all that long ago.
> So my idea is that civilization selects for intelligence.
Or rather literacy.
Selecting for the people who can be persuaded to work hard on mastering a bad system. If there was any intelligence involved, they would have adopted an alphabetic writing system as soon as they ran into one.
The Koreans actually did that in 1446, having imported linguists from south India to create the alphabet. They seem to have adopted it officially in 1894.
> (Some people are uncomfortable talking about such things...)
Taking IQ as measure of general intelligence, as opposed to a quick and dirty way of finding out who is likely to make a competent clerk, should make anybody uncomfortable.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 26/07/19 02:22, Rick C wrote:
Just so. But too many people nowadays equate "science"
with "my prediliction".
Sigh.
The experiment has been running since the 50s, and is well
documented. I merely provided a link to a result of 30s googling.
No, I am not going to spend more of my life trying to get
you to change your mind.
Having said that, it is good to see you backtracking a little.
Just so. But too many people nowadays equate "science"
with "my prediliction".
Sigh.
The experiment has been running since the 50s, and is well
documented. I merely provided a link to a result of 30s googling.
No, I am not going to spend more of my life trying to get
you to change your mind.
Having said that, it is good to see you backtracking a little.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Friday, July 26, 2019 at 3:47:03 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
It's not science unless the study was conducted correctly. Is that really so hard to understand?
No back tracking at all, just your mistaken impression of what I said, just like you apparent misunderstanding of the fox study. Not only have you not provided any evidence this study was remotely rigorous, you haven't even claimed to have seen any other material than the article and a TV show, both of which will be the opposite of rigorous since their purpose is entertainment.
Claim busted!
--
Rick C.
--+- Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
It's not science unless the study was conducted correctly. Is that really so hard to understand?
No back tracking at all, just your mistaken impression of what I said, just like you apparent misunderstanding of the fox study. Not only have you not provided any evidence this study was remotely rigorous, you haven't even claimed to have seen any other material than the article and a TV show, both of which will be the opposite of rigorous since their purpose is entertainment.
Claim busted!
--
Rick C.
--+- Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
G
George Herold
Guest
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 7:39:25 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
'intelligence tests' I don't want to get into the weeds on this,
but there is some clear correlation between whatever IQ tests measure and
academic success, and to a smaller degree monetary success. I guess the
simplest answer is whatever colleges and universities use to select students.
(This isn't meant as any sort of criticism of you, but there seems to be
this tendency within the left, to ignore science when it comes to
'identity politics'. That we all have to be equal, there are no genetic
differences, and it's all nurture... what a pile of horse hockey.)
Hmm, let's leave T out of it.
Civilizations, don't just need manual labors. They need people
for all types of jobs that need 'smarts'. (It's seems a little
pedantic to start listing them all...)
So these people are attracted to the cities where they can use their skill
and get paid more.
Now I've got (on average) some smarter, more successful people living
together in cities. What happens next is they have kids. And smart
parents have smart kids.. (IQ or whatever you want to call it is
~50% heritable.)
Rinse and repeat for ~100's of generations and maybe the overall IQ
goes up a few points. (Maybe this is not true, it's just an idea.)
Clifford, I don't think you live in the US is that right?
Regardless, I've got a book recommendation.
"Coming Apart", but Charles Murray..
It's an interesting idea... and to bring it back to the current day
does help to understand our current political situation.
Yeah I don't know. I'm not sure I have to 'think rationally' with
all parts of my brain. I don't believe in God, but I try to live
my life as if there is one. Does that mean I'm deceiving myself?
(maybe)
George H.
Huh? OK I'm talking about 'smarts' as measured by IQ, SAT, ACT and other
'intelligence tests' I don't want to get into the weeds on this,
but there is some clear correlation between whatever IQ tests measure and
academic success, and to a smaller degree monetary success. I guess the
simplest answer is whatever colleges and universities use to select students.
(This isn't meant as any sort of criticism of you, but there seems to be
this tendency within the left, to ignore science when it comes to
'identity politics'. That we all have to be equal, there are no genetic
differences, and it's all nurture... what a pile of horse hockey.)
Hmm, let's leave T out of it.
Civilizations, don't just need manual labors. They need people
for all types of jobs that need 'smarts'. (It's seems a little
pedantic to start listing them all...)
So these people are attracted to the cities where they can use their skill
and get paid more.
Now I've got (on average) some smarter, more successful people living
together in cities. What happens next is they have kids. And smart
parents have smart kids.. (IQ or whatever you want to call it is
~50% heritable.)
Rinse and repeat for ~100's of generations and maybe the overall IQ
goes up a few points. (Maybe this is not true, it's just an idea.)
Clifford, I don't think you live in the US is that right?
Regardless, I've got a book recommendation.
"Coming Apart", but Charles Murray..
It's an interesting idea... and to bring it back to the current day
does help to understand our current political situation.
Yeah I don't know. I'm not sure I have to 'think rationally' with
all parts of my brain. I don't believe in God, but I try to live
my life as if there is one. Does that mean I'm deceiving myself?
(maybe)
George H.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Friday, July 26, 2019 at 11:11:28 AM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
You have talked about "smart" people migrating to the cities and making more money, but you have not tied it to reproductive rates. That is how natural selection works, but making one part of the population more likely to procreate successfully. What you have left out is that there is a significant factor that as populations improve in economic status they have fewer children by choice. That rather skews the impact of your armchair analysis.
--
Rick C.
--++ Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
You have talked about "smart" people migrating to the cities and making more money, but you have not tied it to reproductive rates. That is how natural selection works, but making one part of the population more likely to procreate successfully. What you have left out is that there is a significant factor that as populations improve in economic status they have fewer children by choice. That rather skews the impact of your armchair analysis.
--
Rick C.
--++ Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
C
Clifford Heath
Guest
On 27/7/19 1:11 am, George Herold wrote:
Yeah, I don't trust them. There are too many cultural aspects to
intelligence, nurture/nature factors, and monetary success is an even
worse indicator. Just very hard to unravel.
Ability to pay fees and not damage reputations.
That doesn't create a gradient. Smart people might have smart kids, but
not (on average) smarter kids.
100 years ago, 99% of Americans lived in farming areas, and 1% in
cities. Now, it's the exact opposite. Pretty tricky to gauge any effect
on genetics on data hidden inside such a massive shift.
I also have a very strong sense of living truthfully; doing only those
things I would feel able to justify publicly without shame, as if all
will actually be revealed. Perhaps that was my church-school upbringing,
perhaps it's just integrity. Perhaps it was being excluded from every
clique at school, so I had to find my self-worth internally, not from
tribal impulses. It also made me hate the abuse of power, so I'm
anti-tribal.
Most people are intensely, deeply tribal, and blissfully unaware of
that. Whether they're religious or not, that's also self-deception. We
like to think we're rational, but we're not. Religion just introduces
the need for an even more difficult-to-construct set of stories.
Clifford Heath.
Yeah, I don't trust them. There are too many cultural aspects to
intelligence, nurture/nature factors, and monetary success is an even
worse indicator. Just very hard to unravel.
Ability to pay fees and not damage reputations.
That doesn't create a gradient. Smart people might have smart kids, but
not (on average) smarter kids.
100 years ago, 99% of Americans lived in farming areas, and 1% in
cities. Now, it's the exact opposite. Pretty tricky to gauge any effect
on genetics on data hidden inside such a massive shift.
I also have a very strong sense of living truthfully; doing only those
things I would feel able to justify publicly without shame, as if all
will actually be revealed. Perhaps that was my church-school upbringing,
perhaps it's just integrity. Perhaps it was being excluded from every
clique at school, so I had to find my self-worth internally, not from
tribal impulses. It also made me hate the abuse of power, so I'm
anti-tribal.
Most people are intensely, deeply tribal, and blissfully unaware of
that. Whether they're religious or not, that's also self-deception. We
like to think we're rational, but we're not. Religion just introduces
the need for an even more difficult-to-construct set of stories.
Clifford Heath.
B
bitrex
Guest
On 7/23/19 4:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
Chimpanzees tend to get annoyed when they get fed a slice of cucumber
while their neighbor gets a bunch of grapes for doing the same task,
human voters seem to often go for "trickle down grapes" in economics
routinely without getting miffed at all but it's doubtful an "advanced
concept" like that would fly with other primate societies. Not having
the benefit of language makes lying harder, too.
Chimpanzees tend to get annoyed when they get fed a slice of cucumber
while their neighbor gets a bunch of grapes for doing the same task,
human voters seem to often go for "trickle down grapes" in economics
routinely without getting miffed at all but it's doubtful an "advanced
concept" like that would fly with other primate societies. Not having
the benefit of language makes lying harder, too.
B
bitrex
Guest
On 7/26/19 7:54 PM, bitrex wrote:
I told the stupid monkey you get cucumbers for now but the grapes will
trickle down! he threw poop at me, anyway! How uncivilized
I told the stupid monkey you get cucumbers for now but the grapes will
trickle down! he threw poop at me, anyway! How uncivilized
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 9:30:01 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
Actually, they do, but there is a regression to the mean, and a lot of variability between kids even when they have both parents in common.
There seem to be thousands - probably tens of thousands - heritable genetic differences involved, each one with with a very small effect.
If there was a lot of effect on reproductive success, the system would converge on a particular recipe quite fast. Some areas of the modern human genome do seem to be evolving fast - there's a recent Finnish study - but they saw social virtues, rather than cleverness, as the trait being selected.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Actually, they do, but there is a regression to the mean, and a lot of variability between kids even when they have both parents in common.
There seem to be thousands - probably tens of thousands - heritable genetic differences involved, each one with with a very small effect.
If there was a lot of effect on reproductive success, the system would converge on a particular recipe quite fast. Some areas of the modern human genome do seem to be evolving fast - there's a recent Finnish study - but they saw social virtues, rather than cleverness, as the trait being selected.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 1:11:28 AM UTC+10, George Herold wrote:
<snip>
The operative word here is "some".
The academic process tests for smarts by having the students study material for a few years, then gets the students to write essays and sit exams where they can exhibit what they have learned.
IQ tests have no preparation, and don't take long to do or to mark. They are a lot cheaper than the full academic process, but a lot less reliable.
Steven Pinker wrote a book about it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
I thought it was a bit silly - the political proposition is that everybody should be seen as having the same potential, but everybody knows that people aren't created equal, and you start taking different capabilities into account as soon as you know enough about individual to know what their capabilities are.
Some political rhetoric has been known to oversimplify this proposition, but it didn't strike me as worth writing a book about. Pinker and his publisher thought differently. It isn't his best-selling book.
"Like Eriksen, Louis Menand, writing for The New Yorker, also claimed that Pinker's arguments constituted a strawman fallacy, stating "[m]any pages of 'The Blank Slate' are devoted to bashing away at the Lockean-Rousseauian-Cartesian scarecrow that Pinker has created."
De-electing him would seem to be a necessary part of that.
Charles Murray writes a lot of right-wing political propaganda. He can be relied on to be selective in his use of evidence, to put it kindly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
makes the point that thinking rationally is an expensive and time-consuming luxury. We do have to do it from time to time to audit what our quick and dirty algorithms are doing, but it's too slow to handle all the decisions that we have to make.
Clearly you are. But it leads to rationally defensible behaviour (most of the time). You do have to think again when you find yourself advocating the incineration of heretics.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
<snip>
The operative word here is "some".
The academic process tests for smarts by having the students study material for a few years, then gets the students to write essays and sit exams where they can exhibit what they have learned.
IQ tests have no preparation, and don't take long to do or to mark. They are a lot cheaper than the full academic process, but a lot less reliable.
Steven Pinker wrote a book about it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
I thought it was a bit silly - the political proposition is that everybody should be seen as having the same potential, but everybody knows that people aren't created equal, and you start taking different capabilities into account as soon as you know enough about individual to know what their capabilities are.
Some political rhetoric has been known to oversimplify this proposition, but it didn't strike me as worth writing a book about. Pinker and his publisher thought differently. It isn't his best-selling book.
"Like Eriksen, Louis Menand, writing for The New Yorker, also claimed that Pinker's arguments constituted a strawman fallacy, stating "[m]any pages of 'The Blank Slate' are devoted to bashing away at the Lockean-Rousseauian-Cartesian scarecrow that Pinker has created."
De-electing him would seem to be a necessary part of that.
Charles Murray writes a lot of right-wing political propaganda. He can be relied on to be selective in his use of evidence, to put it kindly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
makes the point that thinking rationally is an expensive and time-consuming luxury. We do have to do it from time to time to audit what our quick and dirty algorithms are doing, but it's too slow to handle all the decisions that we have to make.
Clearly you are. But it leads to rationally defensible behaviour (most of the time). You do have to think again when you find yourself advocating the incineration of heretics.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Guest
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote in
news:qh6qsc$1p1t$1@gioia.aioe.org:
snip
I cannot believe that you all did not include this in your
discussions.
news:qh6qsc$1p1t$1@gioia.aioe.org:
snip
I cannot believe that you all did not include this in your
discussions.
C
Clifford Heath
Guest
On 27/7/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
No, I mean population average. Two smart people might have a smarter
kid, but if each bred with an average person, you're likely to get more
IQ points overall, if you see what I mean. So it doesn't move the
population average. What could do that is if the smarter kid is more
successful in breeding, but that doesn't seem likely. Rather the
opposite in fact.
No, I mean population average. Two smart people might have a smarter
kid, but if each bred with an average person, you're likely to get more
IQ points overall, if you see what I mean. So it doesn't move the
population average. What could do that is if the smarter kid is more
successful in breeding, but that doesn't seem likely. Rather the
opposite in fact.