[tramdoctorsss]

Racialist = Racist. It's the term used by Neo-Nazis because racist is such a 'nay' word as you would say. They would say they are racialists because they have a racial understanding of the world (the Nazis had a racial understanding of the world). Once you start believing that cultural and social phenomena can be explained by racial differences, you become a racist by logical conclusion because some cultures have plain done more than others and if you believe that is wholly explained by race, then you therefore become a supremacist.

And a bigot is also a racist. It means prejudiced against a group.

[Babposa]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6442853.stm

So do racialism and racism mean the same thing? Yes, says John Simpson, editor of the Oxford English Dictionary Online. They didn't start out that way, but they are now considered one in the same. The definition of both words are now identical and interchangeable. They refer to discrimination and antagonism based on ethnicity, especially the belief that one race is superior to another.

[xjNo4zvD]

With regards to human societies, many (most? all?) have not yet reached the
level of technological sophistication where supply of high IQ individuals would
be the limiting factor in achieving further growth in living standard.

[sigrekatonov]

But no economy is so complex that it needs many high-IQ people to
run. Jobs that produce stuff aren't that demanding. I've just seen a
documentary on the Bugatti Veyron. It's a complex machine, but it's
not that difficult to assemble. In fact, only 17 people work in the
assembly plant:

[BritneySpearsFun@@@]

Rise in living standards is what what we are after. We have not yet
reached the limits of rising living standards. In most of the developing
world the limiting factor is not availability of technology, nor lack of
supply of high IQ people.

In Africa in particular, I believe that the limiting factor is bad governance.
If Africa becomes filled with entities which are governed by the consent
of the governed, which normally happens only in nation-states, we should
see their growth rates improve.

[BloofPailafum]

I don't think it's so simple with Gausses. I'm familiar with the standard deviation
stuff, but after a certain threshold I think IQ numbers don't mean that much. That
is, by inflating a population, you won't get more Gausses. Gauss was not 2 or 3
deviations from the mean, he was simply a guy with a weirdly wired brain. To be
more precise: I think that if you cloned him in 100 copies, you'd probably get
100 smart people, but not another Gauss.

In any case, Africa doesn't need a Gauss to achieve economic growth, Germany
didn't need him either after all. It was not so much scientists that carried the
first industrial revolution as it was engineers and technicians.

[ufUUZCnc]

Again It seems we disagree about how usefull
inteligence is for things like engineering, investing
or hearth surgery vs. the benefit of additional
reashearch.

Since you want to debate economic effects, very well
lets debate them.


Low IQ people have external costs outside job performance.
Crime for starters. Health for another. Employment potential
for antoher. Likleyhood of living on welfare.
Rioting. Stability. Corruption. Ect.

Also even today. Are you saying that if you created a picture
perfect replica of the Japanese isles, populated them with people
with IQs in the low 80s educated them nearly as well as the Japanese
as you could that in 10 years income per capita would not
be biger in Japan than in DumbJapan?


Now suppose you replaced 50% of Japanese with DumbJapanese.
Would the improvment in standard of living decrease in Japan?
Would crime rise? Would the country loose clout over time?

[embefuri]

I don't think that all dumb people are violent, nor that propensity
for crime or violence increases (linearly or otherwise) as IQ decreases.

"Tameness" may well be partially inherited, but I don't think it's the same
thing as intelligence.

[cmruloah]

BTW Thanks for arguing with me on the pet theory, I need people to discuss
it with to get rid of muddled thinking.

In my opinion you (not you in particular) need to develop a sense for
magnitude. That is, among several factors that are all true, which ones
actually effect the outcomes and in what proportions.

Sure, it's true that intelligence is very much inherited, it's true that it's
important, it's true that we can measure some aspects of it, but are the
correlations we get all that explanatory? I think that in most cases
they are rather weak, too weak for strong conclusions.

[IACJdKfU]

Do you know of a non-US study that would confirm that? I don't
intuitively see why it would be so.

May I ask why non-US? I'll try to dig something up, anyway such studies
are messy since its hard to make sure the drugs in question work diffrenetly
than older drugs that people where selected for in the past.

[zU8KbeIU]

This is true. However what about the rate of that future growth of living standard? Also suppose our average IQ slips below the point where we can consistently use contraceptives? Classic malthusian trap if we don't find a way to break down complex tasks and especially break down the process of breaking down complex tasks into simpler bits fast enough as the average IQ falls.

I've seen Idiocracy a while back and frankly I think it exaggerates the true
observation that smart people tend to have few kids. I don't think that world's
intelligence is likely to decrease into oblivion. I mean, the average might go
somewhat down, but there's definitely a bottom and I don't think it's that low.
Dumbness is not a reproductive advantage.

[Licacivelip]

It is very common for geniuses to not breed, but still geniuses never stopped popping out from non genius parents.

Gauss was one of the few who had a large family.

[Scukonahuy]

You have dreams about this IQ stuff? May I suggest a psychotherapist?

[allmyflights]

You have 1.5 year-long obsessions like this IQ obsession? Are you an aspberger?

[Kokomoxcvcv]

You have 1.5 year-long obsessions like this IQ obsession? Are you an aspberger?

The lenght varies. Sometimes It lasts a few weeks the longest one was about 2 years. This is however counting the entire lifespan. As the old obsession slowly dies I get another one, so I can have about 2 at the same time. Logically the sample isn't really big since I'm not that old so I have no idea how this will develop over the decades.

The only time I didn't have one was when I was depressed, I therefore don't bother worrying about them, I only worry if I don't seem to have one.

[hopertveyk]

You have 1.5 year-long obsessions like this IQ obsession? Are you an aspberger?

Assburgers usually have more insight to their obsessions than Hera does.