We are moving in this direction, so what if it finally happens?

[VerbalIntercourse]

"innate" Intelligence levels and what creates them is really at the heart of all social policy and all social engineering programs.

About every 6 months there is a discovery of a new gene that affects brain size and IQ levels. The gene usually accounts for about 2-3% of IQ scores or Brain size. More than likely, it's going to be an orchestra of genes that determine an IQ score. Similar to skin color, many different genes in many different geographically isolated populations may be responsible for the same functions.


So what happens when science finally surveys and maps the Genes responsible for intelligence? What happens to our society?

Is there an enhanced imperative for a progressive society?

When Dr. Bruce Lanh found the ASPM gene, he discontinued his research because it wasn't evenly distributed amongst the races. Amidst the controversy of the discovery, he decided some things weren't worth knowing.

Is that the best option? to suppress the research?

I'm not here to argue nature versus nurture. I just just want to know what the ramifications are for the ultimate discovery event. When science finally removes the spirituality from mankind, and turns us into biological machines.

In my opinion, I think libertarianism or the right-wing would be the wrong policy options for human beings, if and when this happens.

If the average IQ for America is 98, then MORE than half of the population is functionally incapable of surviving in this highly technological and abstract society. They have to be supported by some means other than employment because there is simply no room for them. That's why manufacturing jobs are really important. They need to feel empowered and a part of some type of contributory function of society. A menial task like manufacturing greatly serves that purpose. it's uncomplicated and easy to do, but products that hopefully benefit society are created. The lowly worker can feel like he actually made those products. He feels like his employer couldn't make anything with his "skills", but in reality he's no different than a robot and could be easily replaced by one. McJobs make people feel like they are below everyone.

 

[Suicide King]

Average IQ keeps increasing through the centuries, though.

 

[zerozero]

I think it doesn't change much from the fact that we should organize should by output rather than innate ability. It doesn't matter if you're a good tennis player or bad tennis player innately, what matters is if you won the match.

 

[BlvdBrawler]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Singularity-Is-Near-Transcend/dp/0143037889/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1353458812&sr=8-2&keywords=singularity]The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology: Ray Kurzweil: 9780143037880: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

 

[Slaimon Khan Shah]

The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology: Ray Kurzweil: 9780143037880: Amazon.com: Books

I read this book. It was inspirational and fun to read but remember Ray Kurzweil is not a prophet.

 

[Fillerguy]

The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology: Ray Kurzweil: 9780143037880: Amazon.com: Books

its coming breh

 

[It Takes A Nation...]

I think it doesn't change much from the fact that we should organize should by output rather than innate ability. It doesn't matter if you're a good tennis player or bad tennis player innately, what matters is if you won the match.

This gets to the heart of work ethic vs. natural ability. If a person wants it bad enough they may surpass the performance of someone who has more natural skills but doesn't work hard to apply them.

 

[VerbalIntercourse]

I think it doesn't change much from the fact that we should organize should by output rather than innate ability. It doesn't matter if you're a good tennis player or bad tennis player innately, what matters is if you won the match.

Luck may win one or two matches, but can it determine a successful career in tennis? I don't think so. That's why averages are more important.

Someone with innate ability who doesn't practice will surely lose against someone with lesser nature skill but a more disciplined practice routine. However, if both players practice equally as hard, then the person with the innate ability will win be default.

So, leveling the playing field with social welfare or pre-school programs will just make innate abilities much more advantageous.

Look at the most lucrative BA degrees, they all require a mastery of mathematics that goes beyond calculus.

There is a certain SAT level that is necessary to a satisfactory performance in those fields. Now, most financial firms would rather hire Engineering majors rather than Finance majors. Why wouldn't they hire people with Finance degrees? they are looking for innate quantitative ability, and they will train the rest. Engineering Programs are a test of innate ability, a finance major is not.

The government and charities leveled the playing field with financial aid and scholarships, and now all the employers are looking for signs of innate ability (engineering degrees, math tests, math grades, selective schools, GRE or SAT scores)

 

[88m3]

I think it doesn't change much from the fact that we should organize should by output rather than innate ability. It doesn't matter if you're a good tennis player or bad tennis player innately, what matters is if you won the match.

How American of you to use a sports analogy.

 

[Majestyx]

The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology: Ray Kurzweil: 9780143037880: Amazon.com: Books

its is nigh

 

[zerozero]

Luck may win one or two matches, but can it determine a successful career in tennis? I don't think so. That's why averages are more important.

Someone with innate ability who doesn't practice will surely lose against someone with lesser nature skill but a more disciplined practice routine. However, if both players practice equally as hard, then the person with the innate ability will win be default.

So, leveling the playing field with social welfare or pre-school programs will just make innate abilities much more advantageous.

Look at the most lucrative BA degrees, they all require a mastery of mathematics that goes beyond calculus.

There is a certain SAT level that is necessary to a satisfactory performance in those fields. Now, most financial firms would rather hire Engineering majors rather than Finance majors. Why wouldn't they hire people with Finance degrees? they are looking for innate quantitative ability, and they will train the rest. Engineering Programs are a test of innate ability, a finance major is not.

The government and charities leveled the playing field with financial aid and scholarships, and now all the employers are looking for signs of innate ability (engineering degrees, math tests, math grades, selective schools, GRE or SAT scores)

all I'm saying is that it doesn't seem all that drastic to me if we find out there are biological trends etc. We keep doing what we usually do which is try to advance opportunity and remove bias and other problems from the process and then if the outcomes are awkward those are the outcomes. Someone who doesn't get to place A will be a good fit at some other place B.

 

[VerbalIntercourse]

all I'm saying is that it doesn't seem all that drastic to me if we find out there are biological trends etc. We keep doing what we usually do which is try to advance opportunity and remove bias and other problems from the process and then if the outcomes are awkward those are the outcomes. Someone who doesn't get to place A will be a good fit at some other place B.

IQ is 80% heritable at adulthood. 30% of that environmental impact is acutely removed somehow as one leaves childhood.

Place A is going to be upper middle class and point B will be poverty.

I think it's very drastic. I think this whole notion of the 1% and the rising populist movement could be fueled by the shift of the information age. The barriers to a middle class life are becoming very high.

 

[zerozero]

you've mixed up two things. I agree that the middle class in developed countries is in big trouble. I'm saying the discovery of genes for intelligence is neither here nor there in terms of how we should do things.

 

[the Rock]

 

[VerbalIntercourse]

you've mixed up two things. I agree that the middle class in developed countries is in big trouble. I'm saying the discovery of genes for intelligence is neither here nor there in terms of how we should do things.

I'm saying it's important and relevant to the middle class and social mobility.