2 of 3
2
Are we headed for another Dark Age?
Posted: 25 May 2017 12:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4069
Joined  2009-10-21
Beltane - 24 May 2017 07:55 PM
Lausten - 24 May 2017 10:56 AM
Beltane - 24 May 2017 09:54 AM

Some perspective: The cold hard fact is the more primitive have what it takes to survive, and the smart don’t. As rationalists who know science is the best way to understand how life works, we shouldn’t be surprised that evolution would work that way. It’s the only way it could work!

It must be said the secular humanist (and by extension, liberal) view of the world is just as escapist as any religious view. It’s a weak stand-in for something (religion) that functions 100 times better for the masses, and it reveals a different type of stupidity that’s rampant in the highly

Evidence please

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Religion-Natural-Science-Not/dp/0199341540

https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Trust-Evolutionary-Landscape-Evolution/dp/0195178033

Neither of those books are intended to address what you said. You are reading your bias into whatever you want and claiming you’re validated.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2017 03:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2016-10-10
Lausten - 25 May 2017 12:24 PM
Beltane - 24 May 2017 07:55 PM
Lausten - 24 May 2017 10:56 AM
Beltane - 24 May 2017 09:54 AM

Some perspective: The cold hard fact is the more primitive have what it takes to survive, and the smart don’t. As rationalists who know science is the best way to understand how life works, we shouldn’t be surprised that evolution would work that way. It’s the only way it could work!

It must be said the secular humanist (and by extension, liberal) view of the world is just as escapist as any religious view. It’s a weak stand-in for something (religion) that functions 100 times better for the masses, and it reveals a different type of stupidity that’s rampant in the highly

Evidence please

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Religion-Natural-Science-Not/dp/0199341540

https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Trust-Evolutionary-Landscape-Evolution/dp/0195178033

Neither of those books are intended to address what you said. You are reading your bias into whatever you want and claiming you’re validated.

Have you read these books?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2017 03:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2016-10-10
Lausten - 25 May 2017 12:19 PM
Beltane - 24 May 2017 08:19 PM
Lausten - 24 May 2017 10:54 AM

But intelligence is not hereditary.you’re assuming public education is useless

Actually intelligence is quite hereditary, Lausten. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence

Public school isn’t useless, it is good for making kids literate and teaching some basic math. However a child will not become that smart unless they inherit the genes for it.

Did you read that link, or were you just hoping that I would not?

Can you say more about this? Is there something in this link that counters my claim that intelligence has a large hereditary component? I don’t understand.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2017 04:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4069
Joined  2009-10-21

You’re not worth my time Beltane. If you can’t find support for your argument and summarize it, that’s your problem.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2017 07:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2016-10-10

Don’t know why Lausten has pussied out. I hate when someone does that. For anyone interested, this is truncated from the link I posted on intelligence:

Researchers have conducted many studies to look for genes that influence intelligence. Many of these studies have focused on similarities and differences in IQ within families, particularly looking at adopted children and twins. These studies suggest that genetic factors underlie about 50 percent of the difference in intelligence among individuals.

more recent findings:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523083324.htm

Intelligence is one of the most investigated traits in humans and higher intelligence is associated with important economic and health-related life outcomes. Despite high heritability estimates of 45% in childhood and 80% in adulthood, only a handful of genes had previously been associated with intelligence and for most of these genes the findings were not reliable. The study, published in the journal Nature Genetics, uncovered 52 genes for intelligence, of which 40 were completely new discoveries. Most of these genes are predominantly expressed in brain tissue.


Re: Religion and secular humanism - the books I linked to explain that religious belief is evolutionarily adaptive (that’s why most humans are religious) while more recent things like humanism, liberalism, science (all come from the same basic source) are at odds with human nature. This doesn’t mean they worthless, but that they won’t replace religion anytime soon - if ever.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2017 10:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4069
Joined  2009-10-21

You answered your own question by using a word from junior high school.

From the start, this thread mixed intelligence with religious and made assumptions about hereditary of intelligence. Since “nature vs nurture” is one of the most commonly known among the unsettled debates of the world, I didn’t think I needed to supply any links to make that statement. Beltane considered he had some “cold hard facts” however. Making claims like:

the more primitive have what it takes to survive, and the smart don’t.
it’s the only way evolution could work.
humanism is as escapist as religion


To support these unfounded claims, he linked to two books that are about how religion comes “natural”. This is a different topic. The point of science is to disrupt our natural tendency of confirmation bias. This gives us an advantage in determining choices for our future, instead of heading for a cliff like lemmings. It’s a tool that can be used by anyone with average intelligence. So, the links were useless.

Then he repeated his claim by linking to a study that, in the summary says, ” Other studies have examined variations across the entire genomes of many people (an approach called genome-wide association studies or GWAS) to determine whether any specific areas of the genome are associated with IQ. These studies have not conclusively identified any genes that underlie differences in intelligence. It is likely that a large number of genes are involved, each of which makes only a small contribution to a person’s intelligence.”

The best numbers he has are the “high estimates” that say genetics involve up to 80%. An estimate is a not theory and is not supported by enough evidence to call it a fact. He even includes “not reliable” in his quote. Points for honesty.

Learn to read data and apply it, maybe we can rise above the name calling.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2017 06:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1307
Joined  2005-01-14
Beltane - 24 May 2017 09:54 AM

Some perspective: The cold hard fact is the more primitive have what it takes to survive, and the smart don’t. As rationalists who know science is the best way to understand how life works, we shouldn’t be surprised that evolution would work that way. It’s the only way it could work!

I think I might have missed a step here, because this sounds contradictory.  You admit that science (or rationality) is the best way to understand how life works, and yet you say that the primitive (or non-rational) have what it takes to survive over the smart (rational).  I may have simply misunderstood what you’re getting at.

It must be said the secular humanist (and by extension, liberal) view of the world is just as escapist as any religious view. It’s a weak stand-in for something (religion) that functions 100 times better for the masses, and it reveals a different type of stupidity that’s rampant in the highly intelligent.

That depends on what you mean by “functions”.  The “masses” believe in psychic powers because they prefer to think with their “gut” rather than their brains.  They assume that emotion always trumps reason because that’s the way they want it to be.  The times it doesn’t, they simply ignore.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2017 05:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2016-10-10
Advocatus - 27 May 2017 06:36 AM
Beltane - 24 May 2017 09:54 AM

Some perspective: The cold hard fact is the more primitive have what it takes to survive, and the smart don’t. As rationalists who know science is the best way to understand how life works, we shouldn’t be surprised that evolution would work that way. It’s the only way it could work!

I think I might have missed a step here, because this sounds contradictory.  You admit that science (or rationality) is the best way to understand how life works, and yet you say that the primitive (or non-rational) have what it takes to survive over the smart (rational).  I may have simply misunderstood what you’re getting at.

For clarity, I meant science is the best way to understand life in the “technical” sense, not in any other way.

Re: survival - The less intelligent are tougher, more sexual, more fertile, they have a lot more offspring than the high IQ. Scientists aren’t sure why. They’re life’s winners in an evolutionary sense, which is really all that matters in the long run. Being very intelligent isn’t that adaptable, although it seems to be to us. It’s beneficial to succeeding in our society, but our society is just a small blip on the radar, and might be nearing the end of it’s run.

It must be said the secular humanist (and by extension, liberal) view of the world is just as escapist as any religious view. It’s a weak stand-in for something (religion) that functions 100 times better for the masses, and it reveals a different type of stupidity that’s rampant in the highly intelligent.

That depends on what you mean by “functions”.  The “masses” believe in psychic powers because they prefer to think with their “gut” rather than their brains.  They assume that emotion always trumps reason because that’s the way they want it to be.  The times it doesn’t, they simply ignore.

Its not that they prefer to think with their gut, they do because that’s program evolution has given them; all of humanity think with our gut and brain, - to varying degrees. We don’t have any choice in it.

But it functions extremely well, which is why humanity is around today.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2017 05:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2016-10-10

Can’t edit above.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2017 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2016-10-10
Lausten - 26 May 2017 10:24 AM

You answered your own question by using a word from junior high school.

From the start, this thread mixed intelligence with religious and made assumptions about hereditary of intelligence. Since “nature vs nurture” is one of the most commonly known among the unsettled debates of the world, I didn’t think I needed to supply any links to make that statement. Beltane considered he had some “cold hard facts” however. Making claims like:

the more primitive have what it takes to survive, and the smart don’t.
it’s the only way evolution could work.
humanism is as escapist as religion


To support these unfounded claims, he linked to two books that are about how religion comes “natural”. This is a different topic. The point of science is to disrupt our natural tendency of confirmation bias. This gives us an advantage in determining choices for our future, instead of heading for a cliff like lemmings. It’s a tool that can be used by anyone with average intelligence. So, the links were useless.

Then he repeated his claim by linking to a study that, in the summary says, ” Other studies have examined variations across the entire genomes of many people (an approach called genome-wide association studies or GWAS) to determine whether any specific areas of the genome are associated with IQ. These studies have not conclusively identified any genes that underlie differences in intelligence. It is likely that a large number of genes are involved, each of which makes only a small contribution to a person’s intelligence.”

The best numbers he has are the “high estimates” that say genetics involve up to 80%. An estimate is a not theory and is not supported by enough evidence to call it a fact. He even includes “not reliable” in his quote. Points for honesty.

Learn to read data and apply it, maybe we can rise above the name calling.

Fair enough about the research not being totally, 100% conclusive.  Research usually isn’t.

However since it does point in that direction, let’s say you are probably wrong about intelligence not being hereditary.

[ Edited: 27 May 2017 06:08 PM by Beltane ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2017 07:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4069
Joined  2009-10-21
Beltane - 27 May 2017 06:05 PM

Fair enough about the research not being totally, 100% conclusive.  Research usually isn’t.

However since it does point in that direction, let’s say you are probably wrong about intelligence not being hereditary.

Since we are just arbitrarily saying what’s true or not, let’s say you’re wrong instead. Great. Glad we had this talk.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2017 10:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2016-10-10
Lausten - 27 May 2017 07:15 PM
Beltane - 27 May 2017 06:05 PM

Fair enough about the research not being totally, 100% conclusive.  Research usually isn’t.

However since it does point in that direction, let’s say you are probably wrong about intelligence not being hereditary.

Since we are just arbitrarily saying what’s true or not, let’s say you’re wrong instead. Great. Glad we had this talk.

You can say that but most people will disagree with you. Scientists don’t report their work unless they think they’re are making progress.

I could post dozens of other studies showing that there seems to big genetic component to intelligence, but it’s pointless. Your humanism makes afraid of inequality and you think anyone can become like you with the right education.

The studies are easy to find online if anyone is interested.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2017 05:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4069
Joined  2009-10-21
Beltane - 27 May 2017 10:22 PM
Lausten - 27 May 2017 07:15 PM
Beltane - 27 May 2017 06:05 PM

Fair enough about the research not being totally, 100% conclusive.  Research usually isn’t.

However since it does point in that direction, let’s say you are probably wrong about intelligence not being hereditary.

Since we are just arbitrarily saying what’s true or not, let’s say you’re wrong instead. Great. Glad we had this talk.

You can say that but most people will disagree with you. Scientists don’t report their work unless they think they’re are making progress.

I could post dozens of other studies showing that there seems to big genetic component to intelligence, but it’s pointless. Your humanism makes afraid of inequality and you think anyone can become like you with the right education.

The studies are easy to find online if anyone is interested.

Of course you can, I can find studies that say all sorts of things. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-intelligence-hereditary/ But you have to understand what you are reading. This thread didn’t start with that specific claim and when I asked for evidence from you, it was not what you were saying. If you want to discuss things, I’m glad to do it. If you want to make blanket statements and insult people, go somewhere else.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2017 08:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4256
Joined  2014-06-20
Beltane - 24 May 2017 08:24 PM

Forgot to add this basic rule:

Dumb people have dumb kids

Average people have average kids

High IQ people don’t have kids

Not true. Most geniuses have kids and most are not geniuses. True genius is a rare anomaly and is just as likely
to appear in families if average intelligence as in families if high IQs. In addition, high IQ is a matter of opinion, easily manipulated. Most people who claim to have high IQs don’t. They are quite average but tend to be supercilious.

Have you ever heard iof regression toward the mean?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 May 2017 07:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1307
Joined  2005-01-14
Beltane - 27 May 2017 05:55 PM

For clarity, I meant science is the best way to understand life in the “technical” sense, not in any other way.

Re: survival - The less intelligent are tougher, more sexual, more fertile, they have a lot more offspring than the high IQ. Scientists aren’t sure why. They’re life’s winners in an evolutionary sense, which is really all that matters in the long run. Being very intelligent isn’t that adaptable, although it seems to be to us. It’s beneficial to succeeding in our society, but our society is just a small blip on the radar, and might be nearing the end of it’s run.

It seems to me that you’re drawing a line between “science” and “intelligence”.  I was thinking of “science” in the crudest sense, i.e., what works.  Imagine a “stupid” primitive wandering around, eating every plant he can get his hands on.  Eventually he eats a poisonous one and keels over dead.  The other members of his tribe notice this and don’t eat the same plant, thus displaying a crude form of science.  But the more primitive tribe on the other side of the hill prefers not to learn from their mistakes and keep eating every plant they come across.  But I wouldn’t call them “winners in an evolutionary sense”.  It might be that the two of us are merely seizing upon different examples.

Its not that they prefer to think with their gut, they do because that’s program evolution has given them; all of humanity think with our gut and brain, - to varying degrees. We don’t have any choice in it.

But it functions extremely well, which is why humanity is around today.

I think that they DO prefer it that way.  Thinking is hard.  If all you had to do was listen to your “gut”, no worries.  A friend of mine was once trying to talk me into believing in psychics.  “Haven’t you ever had a premonition come true?” she asked.  I answered, “No.  Never.”  I have premonitions all the time, both good ones and bad ones, but not once in my entire life have I ever had one ‘come true’.  When both good and bad things happen to me, they come completely by surprise, which is why I have learned to completely ignore premonitions.

I will not argue that it’s not functional—in the sense that the vast majority of people still think with their “guts” and it doesn’t seem to do them any harm in the long run.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2