I thought TV couldn't get any worse

[jtr1962]

jtr, you in part miss Tea's point. By definition, an IQ of 100 is a median IQ. 50% of any population should have an IQ below the median. If everyone in the world suddenly had an increase in intelligence, a new, fair IQ test would have to be devised to maintain that result.

I got that part of it. By the definition of IQ, the average IQ, as measured by any tests, would always be 100, but the absolute intelligence(however you choose to measure it) would always be increasing.

I'm not really too sure what constitutes intelligence myself, but it does appear that those who have fewer skills(whether they be in math, science, music, writing) are more apt to cause problems simply because they can't see past the immediate reality. One measure of intelligence that I rather like is simply measuring so-called "common sense", or what I think of as inate problem solving ability. By this measure, every cat I've ever had is smarter than a good portion of the humans on this planet, even if they lack language and written communication skills.

I never thought measuring IQ by solving just math or verbal reasoning problems is necessarily accurate. I had calculus my last year in high school, as did my sister. In Japan they have it in third grade, which might be one of the reasons the average IQ in Japan is higher than anywhere else. Unless you're an engineer, a good deal of higher mathematics has no use in the real world, at least in the formal sense, but it will cause you to score much better on traditional IQ tests. Sure, an athlete uses physics all the time, but this is somehow hardwired into the brain, as it is with my cats. Interestingly, many athletes are somewhat lacking in the formal intelligence department, suggesting that more of their brain power is used for motor functions. Likewise, many of those we like to think of as intelligent trip on a flat sidewalk. Nevertheless, I still think that there is a huge variation in brain capacity among individuals with no real way to accurately measure it. Some people are Renaissance men(or woman) and seemingly excel at whatever they do. Others are hopelessly inept at everything. Most people are average all around, and excel in perhaps one or two areas.

If we were to do "selective breeding", we could start by picking certain types of people we definitely do not want to breed, and go from there. I would imagine hardened criminals, as well as the mentally insane, would top that list, and we can work up from there. Perhaps next up would be chronic drug addicts and welfare cases. Take care of just those few, and you've removed 99% of society's problems by getting rid of perhaps a few percent of the population. This still doesn't deal with the fact that there are just too many people, but it's a start, and you've removed some types who demographically tend to breed like rabbits. We really need to enter a long stage of negative population growth. I'm imagining NYC with a few hundred thousand people as a result of Tea's plan. Housing would go begging. The roads and mass transit would finally be at reasonable levels of use. The portion of the population responsible for vandalism, graffitti, and urban decay would no longer exist. We would likely be using robots to perform most of city's essential functions. You probably wouldn't even need police. In short, it would be paradise.

 

[blakerwry]

lol jtr, are you making your own "modest" proposal here?

 

[Mercutio]

I have severe organic depression. Am I insane? A great many artists of any type are to some degree not operating in the same reality as the rest of us (Van Gogh, Pete Townsend, Willa Cather, Ann Coulter).
Homosexuals choose not to breed. By standards (in the US) up to the DSM III, homosexuality is defined as a mental disorder. Yet at the same time, homosexuals tend to be more intelligent/better educated and affluent (i.e. the sort of people who would probably be generally better parents) compared to heterosexuals. Where do they fit in to this? Ignore the fact that they "can't" breed. Of course they can! That's what test tubes are for.

Understand at this point that I support the idea of controlled breeding. I do. Still, these arguments do need to be presented.

Anyway, to continue: How do you test intelligence of any sort without bias of culture and perception? Symbols? Symbols of any sort represent a cultural bias - a pattern that makes perfect sense to someone from one culture may not be discernable to someone from another (much the way people from Japan substitute an "l" phoneme for an "r", since their language doesn't represent an "r", or the many, many different ways that we can spell an arabic name, since we don't have symbols for the sounds we English speakers hear when an arabic name is pronounced). Perceptual bias exists in the fact that there is no sensation that is common to every human being. Describe "Green" to a color blind person, or the sound of a symphony to a deaf person... you get the idea. At extremes, there are a small number of women in the world who can a color deeper into the infrared side of the spectrum. Some things that look "black" to everyone else are something else entirely to them.

I'd much rather concern myself with the overall fairness of a system of selection than with the single quality of intelligence. The world needs ditch diggers, too. Would your society of generally more intelligent people be willing to do such things? As an example of a fair system, look at China. Two parents can have one child, come what may. You get the same result, a 50% decrease in the population over time, but in this case, we're still getting essentially random distribution, without throwing some kind of eugenics program into the mix.

 

[jtr1962]

I have severe organic depression. Am I insane? A great many artists of any type are to some degree not operating in the same reality as the rest of us (Van Gogh, Pete Townsend, Willa Cather, Ann Coulter).

I think by insane I meant a danger to others, as in criminally mentally ill, not chronic organic depression. Given what happened to you during the last year, almost anybody would be severely depressed, even suicidal. I'm still very depressed over the death of Tiger almost 4 months ago even though I've returned to some semblance of functioning normally. I certainly don't consider myself insane.

There is really no such thing as completely "normal" anyway, nor would I care to live in a society where everybody thought exactly like I do. Trying to be "normal" has caused more people to go insane than actual mental illness has. What I would like is to be able to talk or write and have most of the population understand what I'm talking about, even if they don't agree with it. Sadly, this isn't the case. 90% of what you or I or Tannin, to name a few, post on this board would go right over most people's heads, and this is what I find particularly disturbing.

Anyway, to continue: How do you test intelligence of any sort without bias of culture and perception?

That depends largely on what kinds of intelligence(i.e. ability) are valued by the particular culture. Frankly, I value talent in any area, so excelling at one thing and being mostly competent in others is good enough for me. As you said, you need a variety of talents, including ditch diggers, to keep society functioning. I just want the best ditch diggers that exist in my society. Anyway, in time many of the less desirable but necessary functions of society will be done by robots, and then what do you do with the legions of unemployed and now unemployable? You're certainly not going to kill them, or let them starve to death, so they'll end up draining resources. Sooner or later this is a problem we'll need to confront, and better we do it sooner than later or we have a recipe for social instability.

The world needs ditch diggers, too. Would your society of generally more intelligent people be willing to do such things? As an example of a fair system, look at China. Two parents can have one child, come what may. You get the same result, a 50% decrease in the population over time, but in this case, we're still getting essentially random distribution, without throwing some kind of eugenics program into the mix.

I'm perfectly willing to do some of the "dirty work", if for no other reason than to get exercise. But then again, intelligent people will eventually invent devices to do these things for them.

BTW, I'm wondering if China's system will eventually produce a less able, less intelligent population since in general the more intelligent tend not to breed as much for a variety of reasons(lack of patience with kids in my case). I think under China's system one couple can "give up" their one child so that another couple can have two. Guess which couples are probably more likely to give up their one child? Given China's type of government, I'm really surprised they didn't try to throw in some kind of selective breeding as well. To their credit though they did address a major problem despite being roundly criticized on the world stage for doing so.

 

[Tea]

I AM nOt insaNe!!!!!!!
b
c
d
e
q
www
4
&
79.18376

 

[jtr1962]

I AM nOt insaNe!!!!!!!
b
c
d
e
q
www
4
&
79.18376

I thought you were just suffering from multiple personality disorder but now I see you have other, shall we say, issues. I guess living with Tannin will do that to you. Poor Tea. I feel your pain. I really do.

Are the numbers supposed to be pointing me at a web site, or were you just adding 8 digits in your head and posting the result? Maybe someone else here can figure it out. I'll admit I'm either stumped, or there is no hidden message here.

 

[Tannin]

Remind me not to run out of gin again. She gets quite difficult to handle if I don't let her have her usual gin and banana before before bed. Sorry about that, JTR.

The letters, by the way, don't seem to have any particular significance. I think she just likes lists of things. I think James and Mercutio set her off over in Tech Support. Lately, she's taken to writing down things like:

1: breakfast
a: milk
b: banana
c: more milk
d: more banana
e: toast with honey and Vegamite
f: tea
g: more tea
2: go to office
3: play lunch
a: banana

... and so on. The mornng lists are OK, it's the afternoon lists that seem to get a little out of sequence. Something to do with attention span, I think. I've been wondering if I should attach any special importantce to the way she writes "gin" in bold letters and then, in a thoughtful sort of way, underlines it several times.

 

[Buck]

I think she forgot toast with tomato.

 

[Tea]

a: it doesn't go with honey
b: I am not a ztupid human, I never forget anything
c: ah ... excuse me for a moment

(Tannin?)

(Hmmm?)

(What was "c" again?)

(I don't think there was one, Tea.)

(Oh. Thanks. Sometimez I can't remember.)

c: We are not having any c today.
d: We are not having any d today.
e: We are not having any f today.
g: We are not having any k today.

Oh, excuse me again.

(Yes, Tannin?)

(OK. I don't mind going to the office now. Are we having any more of Belinda's fruit cake for lunch today?)

(Well, you ate some of it, Tannin.)

 

[jtr1962]

Tannin, my father likes to make lists of things also. Sounds like him and Tea would be a perfect match. When he had an aquarium he used to make lists whenever the fishes gave birth, as well as lists of his many collections. It drives me and my mom crazy. He doesn't even use a PC for his lists, either. He'll just rewrite pages of lists every time he adds to them. I even offered him one of my spare machines, but he just isn't interested. I guess you can't teach an old dog(or ape) new tricks.