Does Bad Karma Have an Expiration Date?

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:28:52 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 27/7/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 9:30:01 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:11 am, George Herold wrote:
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 7:39:25 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
It's not clear to me that civilisation advantages intelligence,
Civilizations, don't just need manual labors. They need people
for all types of jobs that need 'smarts'...
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.)

That doesn't create a gradient. Smart people might have smart kids, but
not (on average) smarter kids.

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.

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.

I don't think that you have thought this through. If there isn't any selection going on, shuffling the genes isn't going to make any difference to the population.

Smarter people are better placed to take care of their kids, so there's likely to be some positive selection there.

Smarter people may get un-intentionally pregnant less often, which would decrease their representation in the next generation, but dumber people are less attractive marriage partners, and don't look after their kids as well which probably leads them to be under-represented to a greater extent.

There are ways of working out which bits of the genome are subject to selective pressure - there's less variability around favoured genes - and while the most vigorous selection that is visible is for genes that favour resistance to selective diseases, the Finnish study I referred to - a reference which you have snipped without marking the snip - did talk about genes associated with social virtues.

Making non-evidence-based assertions isn't a social virtue. Backing them up by text-chopping, even less so.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Saturday, 27 July 2019 03:59:02 UTC+1, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 1:11:28 AM UTC+10, George Herold wrote:

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)

Clearly you are.

Thinking that living in a way that maintains self respect is deluded is clearly weird.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 3:31:03 AM UTC+10, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, 27 July 2019 03:59:02 UTC+1, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 1:11:28 AM UTC+10, George Herold wrote:

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)

Clearly you are.

Thinking that living in a way that maintains self respect is deluded is clearly weird.

NT's strategies for maintaining his self-respect are even weirder.

He does come across as depressingly gullible, and the stuff he chooses to believe can't be good for his health.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 27/7/19 6:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:28:52 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 9:30:01 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:11 am, George Herold wrote:
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 7:39:25 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
It's not clear to me that civilisation advantages intelligence,
Civilizations, don't just need manual labors. They need people
for all types of jobs that need 'smarts'...
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.)

That doesn't create a gradient. Smart people might have smart kids, but
not (on average) smarter kids.

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.

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.

I don't think that you have thought this through. If there isn't any selection going on, shuffling the genes isn't going to make any difference to the population.

It was George's suggestion that smarter people interbreeding make the
population smarter. I was the one who pointed out the need for selection
pressure, wherever that comes from.

Smarter people are better placed to take care of their kids, so there's likely to be some positive selection there.
Smarter people may get un-intentionally pregnant less often,

My observation is that many smarter people are often making the decision
not to breed at all.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 11:07:57 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 27/7/19 6:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:28:52 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 9:30:01 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:11 am, George Herold wrote:
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 7:39:25 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
It's not clear to me that civilisation advantages intelligence,
Civilizations, don't just need manual labors. They need people
for all types of jobs that need 'smarts'...
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.)

That doesn't create a gradient. Smart people might have smart kids, but
not (on average) smarter kids.

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.

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.

I don't think that you have thought this through. If there isn't any selection going on, shuffling the genes isn't going to make any difference to the population.

It was George's suggestion that smarter people interbreeding make the
population smarter. I was the one who pointed out the need for selection
pressure, wherever that comes from.

Smarter people are better placed to take care of their kids, so there's likely to be some positive selection there.
Smarter people may get un-intentionally pregnant less often,

My observation is that many smarter people are often making the decision
not to breed at all.

And many dumb people don't manage it either. Without statistics this doesn't mean anything at all.

As usual, you have snipped the text where I pointed out that whole genome studies let you see which bits of the genome have recently be subjected to signifcant selection. You do need lots of whole genome studies to do this and sophisticated statistical analysis, which does seem to be above your pay grade, but if you snip stuff like that you ought to mark the snip.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 4:14:56 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 28/7/19 11:43 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 11:07:57 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 6:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:28:52 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 9:30:01 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:11 am, George Herold wrote:
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 7:39:25 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
It's not clear to me that civilisation advantages intelligence,
Civilizations, don't just need manual labors. They need people
for all types of jobs that need 'smarts'...
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.)

That doesn't create a gradient. Smart people might have smart kids, but
not (on average) smarter kids.

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.

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.

I don't think that you have thought this through. If there isn't any selection going on, shuffling the genes isn't going to make any difference to the population.

It was George's suggestion that smarter people interbreeding make the
population smarter. I was the one who pointed out the need for selection
pressure, wherever that comes from.

Smarter people are better placed to take care of their kids, so there's likely to be some positive selection there.
Smarter people may get un-intentionally pregnant less often,

My observation is that many smarter people are often making the decision
not to breed at all.

And many dumb people don't manage it either. Without statistics this doesn't mean anything at all.

As usual, you have snipped

... the bit I was not intending to respond to, because it was not
relevant to what I wanted to say and I had no more to add to it.

That's widely considered to be polite behaviour.

If you mark the snip. In fact you were snipping stuff that was relevant to what you were talking about, but you were to dim to see the relevance.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 28/7/19 11:43 am, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 11:07:57 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 6:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:28:52 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 9:30:01 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:11 am, George Herold wrote:
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 7:39:25 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
It's not clear to me that civilisation advantages intelligence,
Civilizations, don't just need manual labors. They need people
for all types of jobs that need 'smarts'...
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.)

That doesn't create a gradient. Smart people might have smart kids, but
not (on average) smarter kids.

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.

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.

I don't think that you have thought this through. If there isn't any selection going on, shuffling the genes isn't going to make any difference to the population.

It was George's suggestion that smarter people interbreeding make the
population smarter. I was the one who pointed out the need for selection
pressure, wherever that comes from.

Smarter people are better placed to take care of their kids, so there's likely to be some positive selection there.
Smarter people may get un-intentionally pregnant less often,

My observation is that many smarter people are often making the decision
not to breed at all.

And many dumb people don't manage it either. Without statistics this doesn't mean anything at all.

As usual, you have snipped

.... the bit I was not intending to respond to, because it was not
relevant to what I wanted to say and I had no more to add to it.

That's widely considered to be polite behaviour.

 

On Sunday, 28 July 2019 07:14:56 UTC+1, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 28/7/19 11:43 am, Bill Sloman wrote:

As usual, you have snipped

... the bit I was not intending to respond to, because it was not
relevant to what I wanted to say and I had no more to add to it.

That's widely considered to be polite behaviour.

you're wasting your electrons on him.

 

[George Herold]

On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 9:07:57 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 27/7/19 6:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:28:52 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 9:30:01 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:11 am, George Herold wrote:
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 7:39:25 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
It's not clear to me that civilisation advantages intelligence,
Civilizations, don't just need manual labors. They need people
for all types of jobs that need 'smarts'...
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.)

That doesn't create a gradient. Smart people might have smart kids, but
not (on average) smarter kids.

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.

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.

I don't think that you have thought this through. If there isn't any selection going on, shuffling the genes isn't going to make any difference to the population.

It was George's suggestion that smarter people interbreeding make the
population smarter. I was the one who pointed out the need for selection
pressure, wherever that comes from.

Smarter people are better placed to take care of their kids, so there's likely to be some positive selection there.
Smarter people may get un-intentionally pregnant less often,

My observation is that many smarter people are often making the decision
not to breed at all.

Hi Clifford, I was not thinking about current civilization where
women are no longer second class citizens. And have a role in
family planning. (Of course there are some current places where
women still are 2nd class citizens)

I'm assuming that in the past successful men had more offspring.
That is certainly true at the highest levels of 'male success'.
I don't know how that translates to lower success levels.*

Speaking of animals in general; Males want to spread their
seed around as much as possible, and females have an incentive
to breed with the most successful males, as that gives the
best chance of success to their kids. The current situation
in western civ's, with smart men and women having less children
seems like a bit of an anomaly. Of course it is also recent history
where you could reasonably expect that all your kids would reach
adulthood. Things are very different today. In some ways I figure
we'll start to 'take the reins away' from natural selection,
and start making our own evolutionary choices.... that's kinda
both scary and exciting.

George H.

*let me just note that this is a very 'male centric' view on my part.
I would not be at all surprised if having a smart mom, turned out
to be equally or more important for a child's 'success'.
(I just haven't thought about it much.)

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 29/7/19 1:55 am, George Herold wrote:

On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 9:07:57 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 6:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:28:52 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 9:30:01 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:11 am, George Herold wrote:
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 7:39:25 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
It's not clear to me that civilisation advantages intelligence,
Civilizations, don't just need manual labors. They need people
for all types of jobs that need 'smarts'...
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.)

That doesn't create a gradient. Smart people might have smart kids, but
not (on average) smarter kids.

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.

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.

I don't think that you have thought this through. If there isn't any selection going on, shuffling the genes isn't going to make any difference to the population.

It was George's suggestion that smarter people interbreeding make the
population smarter. I was the one who pointed out the need for selection
pressure, wherever that comes from.

Smarter people are better placed to take care of their kids, so there's likely to be some positive selection there.
Smarter people may get un-intentionally pregnant less often,

My observation is that many smarter people are often making the decision
not to breed at all.

Hi Clifford, I was not thinking about current civilization where
women are no longer second class citizens. And have a role in
family planning. (Of course there are some current places where
women still are 2nd class citizens)

I'm assuming that in the past successful men had more offspring.

Even the expression "successful men" here implies women can't be as
successful - I guess that was a historical perspective.

And the fact you brought it up in the context of being smart implies
that you think our society is structured such that smart people are more
likely to be successful. I just don't believe that smart people get
rewarded by success, except in rare cases. Powerful people get rewarded,
and their children get rewarded, and we notice that the smart ones are
smart, but not that it's not the main reason for their success. Bill
Gates might be smart, but didn't become who he is by being smart. Same
for Elon and the other heroes of American capitalism.

s...and females have an incentive
to breed with the most successful males, as that gives the
best chance of success to their kids.

Which is why women choose powerful men over smart ones almost every time.

In some ways I figure
we'll start to 'take the reins away' from natural selection,
and start making our own evolutionary choices.... that's kinda
both scary and exciting.

This is the idea behind my yet unwritten novel, so I've thought about it
a lot. It's presently unacceptable, but in the story, I suppose that it
has already happened once in a global effect of an individual's escaped
experiment, and folk have come to accept it - so the novel is about how
society dealt with that change.

I would not be at all surprised if having a smart mom, turned out
to be equally or more important for a child's 'success'.

More important, I think, because they influence early development more.

Clifford Heath.

 

[George Herold]

On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 7:32:14 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 29/7/19 1:55 am, George Herold wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 9:07:57 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 6:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:28:52 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 9:30:01 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:11 am, George Herold wrote:
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 7:39:25 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
It's not clear to me that civilisation advantages intelligence,
Civilizations, don't just need manual labors. They need people
for all types of jobs that need 'smarts'...
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.)

That doesn't create a gradient. Smart people might have smart kids, but
not (on average) smarter kids.

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.

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.

I don't think that you have thought this through. If there isn't any selection going on, shuffling the genes isn't going to make any difference to the population.

It was George's suggestion that smarter people interbreeding make the
population smarter. I was the one who pointed out the need for selection
pressure, wherever that comes from.

Smarter people are better placed to take care of their kids, so there's likely to be some positive selection there.
Smarter people may get un-intentionally pregnant less often,

My observation is that many smarter people are often making the decision
not to breed at all.

Hi Clifford, I was not thinking about current civilization where
women are no longer second class citizens. And have a role in
family planning. (Of course there are some current places where
women still are 2nd class citizens)

I'm assuming that in the past successful men had more offspring.

Even the expression "successful men" here implies women can't be as
successful - I guess that was a historical perspective.

And the fact you brought it up in the context of being smart implies
that you think our society is structured such that smart people are more
likely to be successful. I just don't believe that smart people get
rewarded by success, except in rare cases. Powerful people get rewarded,
and their children get rewarded, and we notice that the smart ones are
smart, but not that it's not the main reason for their success. Bill
Gates might be smart, but didn't become who he is by being smart. Same
for Elon and the other heroes of American capitalism.

OK I think those guys are 'wicked smart'. Not all smart people are
successful, but in general they are.
As a single silly data point I'd guess most of us here on SED are
successful... and I'm guessing most have IQ's above average.

Again I'm going to recommend "Coming Apart".
https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010-ebook/dp/B00540PAXS/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=coming+apart&qid=1564406834&s=books&sr=1-1

There is a lot of data in it.

I'm not sure why you think smart people aren't successful.
Is this just a feeling or do you have data?

(Caltech is the one school in the US that doesn't discriminate
on the basis of race... go check out the mix of students there.)

s...and females have an incentive
to breed with the most successful males, as that gives the
best chance of success to their kids.

Which is why women choose powerful men over smart ones almost every time.

In some ways I figure
we'll start to 'take the reins away' from natural selection,
and start making our own evolutionary choices.... that's kinda
both scary and exciting.

This is the idea behind my yet unwritten novel, so I've thought about it
a lot. It's presently unacceptable, but in the story, I suppose that it
has already happened once in a global effect of an individual's escaped
experiment, and folk have come to accept it - so the novel is about how
society dealt with that change.

There was a story on the radio today of people using Crispr to treat
sickle cell anemia.

I would not be at all surprised if having a smart mom, turned out
to be equally or more important for a child's 'success'.

More important, I think, because they influence early development more.

Well that's the other 1/2 of nature and nurture.
But if you don't think that smarts/ intelligence leads to success in the US
then what does? Who you know? Family connections? That was more true in
the past... but obviously still plays apart today.

George H.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

George Herold wrote:

[Snip!]

There was a story on the radio today of people using Crispr to treat
sickle cell anemia.


[...]

George H.

Curing sickle cell anemia while keeping the improved resistance
against malaria would be a neat trick! Did they? Do they even
know?

Jeroen Belleman

 

[George Herold]

On Monday, July 29, 2019 at 11:16:34 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

George Herold wrote:

[Snip!]


There was a story on the radio today of people using Crispr to treat
sickle cell anemia.


[...]

George H.

Curing sickle cell anemia while keeping the improved resistance
against malaria would be a neat trick! Did they? Do they even
know?
I don't know... this looks like the story.

https://sicklecellanemianews.com/2019/02/28/first-patient-enrolled-phase-1-2-trial-ctx001/

GH

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 29/7/19 11:45 pm, George Herold wrote:

On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 7:32:14 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
And the fact you brought it up in the context of being smart implies
that you think our society is structured such that smart people are more
likely to be successful. I just don't believe that smart people get
rewarded by success, except in rare cases. Powerful people get rewarded,
and their children get rewarded, and we notice that the smart ones are
smart, but not that it's not the main reason for their success. Bill
Gates might be smart, but didn't become who he is by being smart. Same
for Elon and the other heroes of American capitalism.

OK I think those guys are 'wicked smart'. Not all smart people are
successful, but in general they are.

Yes, they're smart. But I've worked my whole life with very smart
people, many of them at least as smart as those two, but none achieved
anything like them. The two people I have worked with who made a
$billion for themselves were smart too, but not stand-out remarkable
amongst the others. I reckon for every smart person who makes a billion
dollars there are 100,000 others equally smart who led quite ordinary lives.

So no, I don't credit "being smart" with "becoming highly successful".

As a single silly data point I'd guess most of us here on SED are
successful... and I'm guessing most have IQ's above average.

It seems you've moved the goalposts. I thought we were talking about
success as achieving more than just a family, house, two cars, and a
comfortable retirement.

> Again I'm going to recommend "Coming Apart".

I find the state of modern America a little depressing to contemplate,
because although much is wonderful, I expected more. But I'll see if I
can stomach it.

I'm not sure why you think smart people aren't successful.
Is this just a feeling or do you have data?

Neither - it's based on my experience working with smart people.

But if you don't think that smarts/ intelligence leads to success in the US
then what does? Who you know? Family connections? That was more true in
the past... but obviously still plays apart today.

It seems necessary to be exposed to business operations early in family
life, get a reasonable education, and be backed by enough cash (safety
net) to be able to take risks in early adulthood. But from there, its
mostly gumption and dumb luck (often via connections).

Clifford Heath.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 9:08:46 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 29/7/19 11:45 pm, George Herold wrote:
On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 7:32:14 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
And the fact you brought it up in the context of being smart implies
that you think our society is structured such that smart people are more
likely to be successful. I just don't believe that smart people get
rewarded by success, except in rare cases. Powerful people get rewarded,
and their children get rewarded, and we notice that the smart ones are
smart, but not that it's not the main reason for their success. Bill
Gates might be smart, but didn't become who he is by being smart. Same
for Elon and the other heroes of American capitalism.

OK I think those guys are 'wicked smart'. Not all smart people are
successful, but in general they are.

Yes, they're smart. But I've worked my whole life with very smart
people, many of them at least as smart as those two, but none achieved
anything like them. The two people I have worked with who made a
$billion for themselves were smart too, but not stand-out remarkable
amongst the others. I reckon for every smart person who makes a billion
dollars there are 100,000 others equally smart who led quite ordinary lives.

So no, I don't credit "being smart" with "becoming highly successful".

Chance favours the prepared mind. There aren't than many opportunities around that let you make a billion dollars. The fact that lots of smart people haven't run into one of those opportunities isn't an argument that being smart doesn't make it more likely that you will recognise and exploit such an opportunity when it does show up.

There are quite a few more opportunities around that looks as if they might have billion dollar pay-offs, and smart people will be more likely to notice them too, and lose their shorts when they don't pay off.

As a single silly data point I'd guess most of us here on SED are
successful... and I'm guessing most have IQ's above average.

It seems you've moved the goalposts. I thought we were talking about
success as achieving more than just a family, house, two cars, and a
comfortable retirement.

Again I'm going to recommend "Coming Apart".

I find the state of modern America a little depressing to contemplate,
because although much is wonderful, I expected more. But I'll see if I
can stomach it.

Charles Murray is in the business of making modern America look wonderful to people who have made a lot of money there. He serves a particular branch of American publishing that sells books to rich Americans by flattering their vanity. John Larkin recommends that kind of book quite often.

He's not exactly an objective observer trying to present an unbiassed picture of reality

I'm not sure why you think smart people aren't successful.
Is this just a feeling or do you have data?

Neither - it's based on my experience working with smart people.

But if you don't think that smarts/ intelligence leads to success in the US
then what does? Who you know? Family connections? That was more true in
the past... but obviously still plays apart today.

It seems necessary to be exposed to business operations early in family
life, get a reasonable education, and be backed by enough cash (safety
net) to be able to take risks in early adulthood. But from there, its
mostly gumption and dumb luck (often via connections).

But takes smarts to recognise and exploit useful information. Insider information isn't peer-reviewed, and for every useful tip there are likely to be several tips that are likely to get you charged for insider trading if you exploit them, or designed to persuade you to put money into some kind of scam.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, July 29, 2019 at 11:45:11 PM UTC+10, George Herold wrote:

On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 7:32:14 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 29/7/19 1:55 am, George Herold wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 9:07:57 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 6:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:28:52 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 9:30:01 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:11 am, George Herold wrote:
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 7:39:25 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:

<snip>

I don't think that you have thought this through. If there isn't any selection going on, shuffling the genes isn't going to make any difference to the population.

It was George's suggestion that smarter people interbreeding make the
population smarter. I was the one who pointed out the need for selection
pressure, wherever that comes from.

Smarter people are better placed to take care of their kids, so there's likely to be some positive selection there.
Smarter people may get un-intentionally pregnant less often,

My observation is that many smarter people are often making the decision
not to breed at all.

Hi Clifford, I was not thinking about current civilization where
women are no longer second class citizens. And have a role in
family planning. (Of course there are some current places where
women still are 2nd class citizens)

I'm assuming that in the past successful men had more offspring.

Even the expression "successful men" here implies women can't be as
successful - I guess that was a historical perspective.

And the fact you brought it up in the context of being smart implies
that you think our society is structured such that smart people are more
likely to be successful. I just don't believe that smart people get
rewarded by success, except in rare cases. Powerful people get rewarded,
and their children get rewarded, and we notice that the smart ones are
smart, but not that it's not the main reason for their success. Bill
Gates might be smart, but didn't become who he is by being smart. Same
for Elon and the other heroes of American capitalism.

OK I think those guys are 'wicked smart'. Not all smart people are
successful, but in general they are.
As a single silly data point I'd guess most of us here on SED are
successful... and I'm guessing most have IQ's above average.

Again I'm going to recommend "Coming Apart".
https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010-ebook/dp/B00540PAXS/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=coming+apart&qid=1564406834&s=books&sr=1-1

There is a lot of data in it.

And if Charles Murray's previous books are anything to go by, a lot more left out. He has a history of cherry-picking his data to fit the case he wants to make.

<snip>

This is the idea behind my yet unwritten novel, so I've thought about it
a lot. It's presently unacceptable, but in the story, I suppose that it
has already happened once in a global effect of an individual's escaped
experiment, and folk have come to accept it - so the novel is about how
society dealt with that change.

There was a story on the radio today of people using Crispr to treat
sickle cell anemia.

They might be using it to prevent sickle cell anemia in - as yet unborn - children, but doing gene editing on all the billions of cells in an existing individual is a bit more ambitious. Since the treatment at conception has been condemned as unethically risky, treating lots more cells in a living person would see to be even more risky.

I would not be at all surprised if having a smart mom, turned out
to be equally or more important for a child's 'success'.

More important, I think, because they influence early development more.
Well that's the other 1/2 of nature and nurture.
But if you don't think that smarts/ intelligence leads to success in the US
then what does? Who you know? Family connections? That was more true in
the past... but obviously still plays apart today.

And is more important in the US than it is in northern Europe. Annual income in the US is about as heritable as height.

https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER_DP364.pdf?sequence=1

In Finland, nurture has less effect, because society puts in quite a bit of effort to make nurture pretty good for everybody. The US prefers to collect less of the national income in taxes, and has less money to spend on making sure that the children of the less well-off aren't short-changed.

The Finnish educational system is famously well-funded right across the country.

The US primary and secondary educational system is funded by the local school districts, which are remarkably small, and quite a few of them don't have much money to pay for schools and school teachers.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, July 29, 2019 at 9:45:11 AM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:

On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 7:32:14 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 29/7/19 1:55 am, George Herold wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 9:07:57 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 6:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:28:52 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 9:30:01 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:11 am, George Herold wrote:
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 7:39:25 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
It's not clear to me that civilisation advantages intelligence,
Civilizations, don't just need manual labors. They need people
for all types of jobs that need 'smarts'...
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.)

That doesn't create a gradient. Smart people might have smart kids, but
not (on average) smarter kids.

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.

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.

I don't think that you have thought this through. If there isn't any selection going on, shuffling the genes isn't going to make any difference to the population.

It was George's suggestion that smarter people interbreeding make the
population smarter. I was the one who pointed out the need for selection
pressure, wherever that comes from.

Smarter people are better placed to take care of their kids, so there's likely to be some positive selection there.
Smarter people may get un-intentionally pregnant less often,

My observation is that many smarter people are often making the decision
not to breed at all.

Hi Clifford, I was not thinking about current civilization where
women are no longer second class citizens. And have a role in
family planning. (Of course there are some current places where
women still are 2nd class citizens)

I'm assuming that in the past successful men had more offspring.

Even the expression "successful men" here implies women can't be as
successful - I guess that was a historical perspective.

And the fact you brought it up in the context of being smart implies
that you think our society is structured such that smart people are more
likely to be successful. I just don't believe that smart people get
rewarded by success, except in rare cases. Powerful people get rewarded,
and their children get rewarded, and we notice that the smart ones are
smart, but not that it's not the main reason for their success. Bill
Gates might be smart, but didn't become who he is by being smart. Same
for Elon and the other heroes of American capitalism.

OK I think those guys are 'wicked smart'. Not all smart people are
successful, but in general they are.
As a single silly data point I'd guess most of us here on SED are
successful... and I'm guessing most have IQ's above average.

Again I'm going to recommend "Coming Apart".
https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010-ebook/dp/B00540PAXS/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=coming+apart&qid=1564406834&s=books&sr=1-1

There is a lot of data in it.

I'm not sure why you think smart people aren't successful.
Is this just a feeling or do you have data?

(Caltech is the one school in the US that doesn't discriminate
on the basis of race... go check out the mix of students there.)

s...and females have an incentive
to breed with the most successful males, as that gives the
best chance of success to their kids.

Which is why women choose powerful men over smart ones almost every time.

In some ways I figure
we'll start to 'take the reins away' from natural selection,
and start making our own evolutionary choices.... that's kinda
both scary and exciting.

This is the idea behind my yet unwritten novel, so I've thought about it
a lot. It's presently unacceptable, but in the story, I suppose that it
has already happened once in a global effect of an individual's escaped
experiment, and folk have come to accept it - so the novel is about how
society dealt with that change.

There was a story on the radio today of people using Crispr to treat
sickle cell anemia.



I would not be at all surprised if having a smart mom, turned out
to be equally or more important for a child's 'success'.

More important, I think, because they influence early development more.
Well that's the other 1/2 of nature and nurture.
But if you don't think that smarts/ intelligence leads to success in the US
then what does? Who you know? Family connections? That was more true in
the past... but obviously still plays apart today.

No chance it's hard work that leads to success???

--

Rick C.

-+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 1:43:32 PM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

On Monday, July 29, 2019 at 9:45:11 AM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 7:32:14 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 29/7/19 1:55 am, George Herold wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 9:07:57 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 6:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:28:52 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:12 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 9:30:01 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 27/7/19 1:11 am, George Herold wrote:
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 7:39:25 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
It's not clear to me that civilisation advantages intelligence,
Civilizations, don't just need manual labors. They need people
for all types of jobs that need 'smarts'...
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.)

That doesn't create a gradient. Smart people might have smart kids, but
not (on average) smarter kids.

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..

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.

I don't think that you have thought this through. If there isn't any selection going on, shuffling the genes isn't going to make any difference to the population.

It was George's suggestion that smarter people interbreeding make the
population smarter. I was the one who pointed out the need for selection
pressure, wherever that comes from.

Smarter people are better placed to take care of their kids, so there's likely to be some positive selection there.
Smarter people may get un-intentionally pregnant less often,

My observation is that many smarter people are often making the decision
not to breed at all.

Hi Clifford, I was not thinking about current civilization where
women are no longer second class citizens. And have a role in
family planning. (Of course there are some current places where
women still are 2nd class citizens)

I'm assuming that in the past successful men had more offspring.

Even the expression "successful men" here implies women can't be as
successful - I guess that was a historical perspective.

And the fact you brought it up in the context of being smart implies
that you think our society is structured such that smart people are more
likely to be successful. I just don't believe that smart people get
rewarded by success, except in rare cases. Powerful people get rewarded,
and their children get rewarded, and we notice that the smart ones are
smart, but not that it's not the main reason for their success. Bill
Gates might be smart, but didn't become who he is by being smart. Same
for Elon and the other heroes of American capitalism.

OK I think those guys are 'wicked smart'. Not all smart people are
successful, but in general they are.
As a single silly data point I'd guess most of us here on SED are
successful... and I'm guessing most have IQ's above average.

Again I'm going to recommend "Coming Apart".
https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010-ebook/dp/B00540PAXS/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=coming+apart&qid=1564406834&s=books&sr=1-1

There is a lot of data in it.

I'm not sure why you think smart people aren't successful.
Is this just a feeling or do you have data?

(Caltech is the one school in the US that doesn't discriminate
on the basis of race... go check out the mix of students there.)

s...and females have an incentive
to breed with the most successful males, as that gives the
best chance of success to their kids.

Which is why women choose powerful men over smart ones almost every time.

In some ways I figure
we'll start to 'take the reins away' from natural selection,
and start making our own evolutionary choices.... that's kinda
both scary and exciting.

This is the idea behind my yet unwritten novel, so I've thought about it
a lot. It's presently unacceptable, but in the story, I suppose that it
has already happened once in a global effect of an individual's escaped
experiment, and folk have come to accept it - so the novel is about how
society dealt with that change.

There was a story on the radio today of people using Crispr to treat
sickle cell anemia.



I would not be at all surprised if having a smart mom, turned out
to be equally or more important for a child's 'success'.

More important, I think, because they influence early development more.
Well that's the other 1/2 of nature and nurture.
But if you don't think that smarts/ intelligence leads to success in the US
then what does? Who you know? Family connections? That was more true in
the past... but obviously still plays apart today.

No chance it's hard work that leads to success???

It can play a part, but poorly directed hard work just leads to burn-out.

There are quite a few roads to success, but they are anything but clearly signposted, and quite a few more that lead to staying where you were, and even more that lead to failure (or a least very restricted success).

Working out the right thing to work hard on is a whole lot more important than just working hard, which is frequently used as distraction from thinking about what - exactly - you are working towards.

I've got clear memories of working very hard to try to meet a totally unrealistic dead-line, and being too busy to take the time to point out that the corner-cutting involved was destroying any chance we might have had to make the dead-line.

I took away the weekly reports I wrote while this was going on, and the next couple of years worth of reports written when we were working on cleaning out the errors that we'd made when we were working too hard. They are now up on my web-site. Bitrex says that it is an obituary, which isn't wrong.

http://sophia-elektronica.com/At_Cambridge.html

sets the context and provides links to the weekly reports and a couple of pages of extra context.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tuesday, 30 July 2019 04:43:32 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:

On Monday, July 29, 2019 at 9:45:11 AM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 7:32:14 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 29/7/19 1:55 am, George Herold wrote:

I would not be at all surprised if having a smart mom, turned out
to be equally or more important for a child's 'success'.

More important, I think, because they influence early development more.
Well that's the other 1/2 of nature and nurture.
But if you don't think that smarts/ intelligence leads to success in the US
then what does? Who you know? Family connections? That was more true in
the past... but obviously still plays apart today.

No chance it's hard work that leads to success???

You tell us, are coal miners rich? Or construction labourers?


NT

 

tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote in news:9697fc94-b9aa-4135-bcf4-
3f7b0efa6914@googlegroups.com:

You tell us, are coal miners rich? Or construction labourers?

Coal mine owners certainly are.

Miners' arms are not chained to a rail as in the '20s (minor)
textile mill setting, but they remain one of the worst paid groups in
the nation.
Almost as bad as Southern California produce field workers.

Construction laborers do a lot better, but that varies greatly with
region as well.

Odd too. The metling pot of Southern California pushes the wage
down, yet the melting pot that is NYC pushes general labor wages up.
It is all about greed and what a given population is willing to
endure.

Sad too in such a prosperous nation.