Read the bold. The rest is self-delusional bullshit. Also, you only read one side of an issue, lack any form of critical thinking where you blindly accept any information that you agree with and treat it as fact. That you think you are having an intellectual discussion is a joke. You may as well be Dinodoc or Oerdin on racism. These are the facts!

Let me get this straight. You disagree with the bolded area right? Do you disagree with the idea that people differ genetically in their IQ potential? Or do you disagre with the idea that IQ is a reasonable (if not perfect) proxy for inteligence?

Even so do you think that the world wouldn't be better off (in the sense of a standard of living) with a larger share of smarter people? Do you perhaps simply disagree on the means to acheive this (reduce rates of parasitic infections, improve education, improve childhood nutrition instead of say eugenics) or do you disagree that a increase of inteligence (all else being equal) would improve quality of live over time?

The real issue is how many children you will have. If your IQ really would be 135 I would encurage you to have children and also think it fair the state slapped you with higher tax reductions the more kids you had.

However. The important bit is also the inteligence of the mate you would choose. Also depends to which mean you'll regress to. If I recall right you have a Arab (or was it mixed?) backround? Syria or Lebanon?
Even if your kids regress to 90, 135 is still a ok place to start. If however your kids regressed to 80 this might put my support for you having kids on about the same level a 100 IQ guy from a 100 IQ population has, which is still something since even 100 IQ people have subreplacement fertility.

The sad thing about regression towards the mean is that a South Korean Janitor has a higher chance of having a smart kid than a Black Judge from Angola. African countries need to employ eugenic measures on all Black populations, otherwise we would just end up selecting for Asian, Arab or White admixture. Sure after a few generations the alleles for inteligence would break out on their own and wouldn't drag other racial admixtures with them, but I'd much prefer we increased the frequency of existing unique African alleles for inteligence (we know recent selection for inteligence has taken place since West Africans have IQs a good 10 or 15 points higher than Khosians or Pygmyes and West African body types developed over a mere 10k years when exposed to the selective pressures of tropical farming).

Humans shouldn't merge into one group, we need to employ eugenic measures on various isolated populations so evolution has a chance to try different things. The genes that make Brahim smart are not the same ones as the ones that make the urban population of China smart which are again different from the ones that make the Askenazi smart, and this is a very good thing. Fortunatley even if we loose isolated populations in the next few centuries eugenic measures might be able to create new isolated populations so we can explore several evolutionary paths.

WTF no!

I'm just saying his children's inteligence will regress towards a higher mean.



You need to read this.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/2...c4b8b11217.png

y is the expected IQ of the child,
x is the mean IQ of the population to which the parents belong,
h2 is the heritability of IQ,
m and f are the IQs of the mother and father, respectively

From wikipedia:
The equation asserts that, on average, the IQ of a child tends to the mean IQ of the population. For instance, if the heritability of IQ is 50% and the mean IQ of a population is 100, then a couple with an average IQ of 120 will, on average, have a child with an IQ of 110. Similarly, a couple with an average IQ of 80 will, on average, have a child with an IQ of 90.
It all depends on the population his kids will be a part of. I would give as much support to a 135 IQ Angolan having more children as I would support a 135 IQ Japanese guy having kids. However I would be less encouraging for a gentile White guy with a IQ of 135 to have a kid living in Israel than a Askenazi 135 IQ Jew.

God damn, you are Ben level retarded. Seriously, were you dropped on your head as a baby? How can you be this thick and be able to use a computer?

So you're saying here that you want to suck Hilter's ****? Wow, that's quite an admission.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif It's like you come from bizzaro world or something.

Oh, I see. You have a learning disability. That explains a lot.

I've lost patience with you're worthless responses, don't expect me to read or respond to you further.

Lower IQ isn't exactly the same as dumber. People are sometimes called dumb when they lack people skills, there are also other things that fall under "dumb" that aren't really measured by IQ. For example Blacks slightly outperform on the job compared to what is predicted on IQ alone, which isn't true for Whites and East Asians.


I'm basing a lower mean IQ on these two things:

-On average children of Arab Immigrants to devloped countries regress to the same mean that children in their parents native population do. Which is lower than the mean to which Asian, Jewish and Gentile (US) White IQs regress to.

- Direct comparissions between countries once adjusted for SES.


There is lots of variation in "Arabs" though. Sudanese or Yemenite "Arabs" regress to a completley different mean than say Christian Arabs from Lebanon or Arabs from Algeria. They are however nearly all below 100 (but the higher ones reach the "dumber" White countries like Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Slovenia, ect.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...king_world.svg

Calling someone Arab isn't really saying someone belongs to this or that race. Just like calling somone Americans isn't calling them White.

However. If someone is a English speaker from Jamaica one can safley assume he is probably mostly of African extraction (despite other minorities), the same is true of the US. About 70% of Americans are plain Non-Hispanics Whites and I've heard estiamtes that around 1/3 to 2/3 of Hispanics classify as Whites. And even African Americans average 20% White admixture.

If black people do better than what IQ would suggest, doesn't that suggest that IQ tests underrate their intelligence?

-On average children of Arab Immigrants to devloped countries regress to the same mean that children in their parents native population do. Which is lower than the mean to which Asian, Jewish and Gentile (US) White IQs regress to. Could you give some examples of these studies?

- Direct comparissions between countries once adjusted for SES. What is SES?

Also, since intelligence already makes people more successful why do they need additional government subsidies?

As to recent SubSaharan admixture in Arabs http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/138

A proportion of 1/4 to 1/2 of North African female pool is made of typical sub-Saharan lineages, in higher frequencies as geographic proximity to sub-Saharan Africa increases. The recent bit is important. Over time selection pressures can completley undue correlations between admixture from various groups and IQ. And anyway old stable endogamus populations with fixed ratios of admixture basically become "new" populations over time.

You have a good point. However you understand support too narrowly.

Tax breaks can be motivatiors for marriage, why not children? Also tax breaks for employers who employ women during their maternity leave have made a difference in hiring and promoting practicies in countries where such measures exist.

If children increase your chances of getting your dream job or fulfilling your ambitions, perhaps even getting into a elite college, I'm pretty sure even well off people will take the time to have children.

Also at the end of the day there are many poor but inteligent individuals, for them this would be motivational. And doing something that produces a measurable effect is doing better than nothing.


And don't forget I'm not nesecarilly talking goverment here. Charities could also pick up the slack.

While negative eugenics is a slippery slope and I don't usually support it, I think I however should mention that there already exist charities that give cash to drug addicts so that they get sterilized.

I'm arguing selecting for IQ would have positive effects on everyone's wellbeing. I may coloquially sometime mislabel it inteligence, thought if you read my recent posts I explain its not exactly the same thing. (though I need to challenge you, most psychometricians accept IQ as a usefull proxy for inteligence)

Lebanon's. Adjusted for Flynn effect of course (makes it a bit higher than expected since the Flynn effect hasn't been confirmed to have ended in Lebanon).


Also Lynn's estimate for Lebanon (86) is almost certainly wrong. Considering all the Carlos Slims that come from them, I'm willing to bet they are at least on Turkey's level, which means they are comparable to places like Ireland.

If there is any selection at all for economic well being (lets say their IQ gets in the 110+ range) when it comes to immigrants from Lebanon they would IQ-wise fit right in most European nations (their kids wouldn't do worse than a random native European kid).

I'm not buying it, Hera.

How does Moldova or other poor Eastern European countries which are economically and socially probably similar to the Mediterranean countries, compare with IQ? Do northern Italians who I imagine are much richer and have a better educational infrastructure fare much better than the rest of the Mediterranean brethren? If Germany was as poor as Iraq and Iraq was as rich as Germany, their education systems were swapped, etc., would the Iraqis have 105 IQs and Germans have 80 IQ's?

And why the change over the centuries? Arguably, the Mediterranean world was the most intellectually accomplished area on the planet until about the 18th century... granted, rare individuals in ideal circumstances may have motivated everything, but whether you're talking about the ziggurats at Ur, the philosophy of Plato, the Roman aqueducts, the invention of algebra, or the works of Michaelangelo, the Mediterranean world surely has in the past averaged a higher IQ than the rest of the planet. Why the down-turn?