Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas Mercer-Hursh who wrote (45391)	8/12/2001 4:24:18 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Thomas, here's a PM rant I just sent to Malcolm on the subject. Whether you like the univariate IQ tests or not, they are more accurate than seat of the pants guesses about what 'should' be happening. The accelerating rate of technology change is indicative of an overall increase in human intelligence in the sense that total brainpower is increasing though I agree it doesn't necessarily mean the average, highest or median IQ is any different. The Flynn Effect here: sciam.com Flynn is a wacko left wing supporter of the Alliance [a communist left-wing political party] according to that link who did NOT like what he proved! =========================================================== ...Starting with facts, I know that the Flynn Effect is for real and measured intelligence has increased over the last century [in certain aspects of intelligence anyway and the other parts haven't lost ground]. That is apparently a worldwide effect. Now for the more important opinion part, which might be less accurate but is more fun. My mother told me decades ago that she and my father felt obliged to have lots of children [they had 4, which isn't a lot - getting pregnant is not as simple as they thought though that's not my experience] because the less intelligent should not be left to outbreed the rest. I have some sympathy with that view but I think it takes a too narrow view of what a successful, high quality human is. To me, every single living thing alive right now has been as successful in the DNA wars as every other and none can be said to be 'better' than any other. My parents were a product of the early 20th century when eugenics was a popular theme [which I still think is a good idea but on a voluntary basis - people could choose their childrens' DNA from a menu, eliminating things like cancer tendency, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anaemia and selecting the IQ 140 DNA and the powerful T-cell lymphocytes, with cloning thrown in [identical twins really like each other and I suspect clones would have strong affiliation too]]. There is also the rich getting richer and the poor get children theme which is perhaps centuries old now, though I wonder how true it really is. The implication is that the poor were stupid. I'm not sure that's true, especially when land was inherited from violent people who won and held it by being toughest. I'd argue that violence is correlated with stupidity and so is a strong drive for dominance [like a common alpha male chimp] so 'leaders' and the rich in the time of wealth through possession and conquest are negatively correlated with intelligence [although a fair bit would be needed to succeed in the confiscation process]. Also, breeding reverts to the mean. So a couple of dumb people tend to have more intelligence children than themselves whereas two high IQ types tend to have less intelligent children. Another point is that what matters for people is the total number of IQ points alive at any given time. Even if the average is dropping, if the total IQ points alive is increasing due to population increase, there is an overall gain and that's what's been happening. I'm making this up as I go, but it makes sense to me. Apart from that total IQ points business, the total number of smart people is what matters even more. With the population increase and economic development, the total number of IQ 180 people in the creative economic world is dramatically more than 80 years ago when huge numbers were in famines, rice paddies, wars and the depression on a fast road to nowhere. It doesn't matter that there are hordes more low IQ people as long as the numbers of really smart ones is increasing as it is. The low IQ people provide the support which the smart ones need to do their creative stuff. Any person is a good person in other words [criminals etc excluded of course]. The more the merrier! So, I'm very optimistic and like the big population, even if the total number of low IQ people is increasing and even if there are a greater proportion of them. They are absolutely smarter than those people from 60 years ago and 30 years ago so in absolute terms, we are gaining ground. Why worry if they aren't as smart as the smartest. Cats aren't all that smart either, but this morning I was amused to see the cat knew which door to go to when she and I came back to the house having walked down the driveway to get the newspaper. I just automatically walked to the locked door whereas she went to the door we'd come out - she was awake and thinking whereas I was dozey! When I noticed the cat going the wrong way, I then realized it was me and enjoyed a wry smile at my low IQ compared with a cat - she solved the problem of getting inside and I failed. She helped me. I fed her. We work well together even though she's as lazy and stupid as a rock most of the time. [Actually, my wife fed her - I'm the smart one who wastes his life clicking on a keyboard earning the money which I give to my lower IQ wife; we all seem to work in very well and each needs the other, though I agree we don't want too many cats and we sure don't want them making the big decisions]. Excuse the long rant, but it's a great day, sun's up and I just felt like it. I'll have to go 3D soon. ========================================================== The Flynn Effect is clear evidence of continuing average individual intelligence increase - worldwide, nothing to do with USA immigrants and cultural bias changing. More importantly, the total brainpower has been increasing by leaps and bounds due to population increase. Even more importantly, those brains are not living lives of rural penury. They are increasingly doing things like developing CDMA and cyberspace. China is abuzz with developments. India is yawning and waking up. The implication for Gorilla hunters is that profits for the successful gorillas which rule in their domain will be enormous, with markets of 5 billion people or 7 billion people in a few years, with more money to spend, instead of the pathetic little markets of only 20 years ago. Those 5 billion won't buy SUVs [there isn't enough room or fuel]. They WILL buy cyberspace and the electrophotonics which cyberspace runs on, which are cheap, very useful and the supply of which is unlimited. See, it was on topic!! So no complaints from UF et al. The candidate best representing this opportunity remains Mighty Q! Mqurice PS: It occurred to me today when I saw that $1.2 trillion has been wiped from the stock market in the USA that this is trivial, especially since it was the reduction from a very sudden bubble peak. Trivial overall economically I mean! Not for those who got crushed. That's only $5,000 per person. The income from $5000 market capitalisation per year is only $500. The USA GNP per capita is $50,000 or something like that. $500 is trivial. Average incomes are $30,000 or something so in those terms too, $500 per year is trivial [annoying, but trivial]. No wonder consumer spending is holding up. The interest rate cuts by comparison are hugely significant in the economy. Expect a rapid turnaround in the world's economy, led by Alan Green$pan and the USA.