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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (172112)	10/7/2005 2:21:30 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Maurice, I think you reach too far, i.e.: [After reposting chart that shows children from higher income families are more likely to achieve higher SAT scores].. From that we can see the value of brains. We can reasonably assume that SAT results are much the same as the parental SAT results. So those in the bottom quarter, earned something like $10,000 while those in the top quarter earned something like $15,000. But, as I recall, one of the views of the authors who presented those statistics was that higher income families tended to provide a richer intellectual environment and a stronger base of SAT tested knowledge for their children. If that's true then how do you quantify whether some, or all, of the correlation is genetically based as opposed to environmentally influenced? As the entire series of articles seems to suggest; the conclusion you can draw from these studies is "not enough information." I do, as I've stated, agree with your basic premise that groups differ in terms of mental aptitudes. It makes no sense that nature would channel every group of people into being "just the same" in terms of intellectual aptitudes. After all, many of our ancestors developed in distinct locales facing distinctly different survival challenges that weeded out those lacking different skills. Regardless of whether that is true, however, current "IQ" tests aren't smart enough to filter out environmental effects and quantify any actual differences that might exist, including slight differences in the parts of the brain utilized by different groups to attempt to solve similar problems. When it comes to supporting your point with studies I think your smoking gun proof will have to wait a little longer. As far as the value of "brains," that's interesting when you consider the value of brains today as opposed to the value of brains 50 years ago. I am in my 50s but I can remember a time when a willing worker with a strong back could make a good living even if he wasn't too bright. Now we have machines doing the work of most of those men and a much higher percentage of decent paying working jobs require good social skills, good appearance, some technological savvy and above average mental acuity. The highest paying jobs require, as you suggest, a highly functioning brain. The willing workers with dull brains and strong backs are, therefor, left with the lowest paying jobs or no jobs and the trend is that it will get worse. Some day we will have to acknowledge that there are far more of such workers than the economy needs and that the commonly accepted truism that "any man that's willing to work can support a family" is no longer accurate. What do we do then; put those people on the public dole, create a government work program or just let them become an agitated, disenfranchised seething force in society? We'd better start thinking about that. And yes, the new wealth will continue to be intelligence. Truly intelligent people have hit the lottery, more so than at any time in history, because the world has gotten so complex that the relative need for people with a big grasp of ideas and solutions is greater than it has ever been and the percentage of such people hasn't grown. Now, if some of those intelligent people blow up civilization all that will change and a willing worker with a strong back will have an important role again. Ed

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (172112)	10/7/2005 2:40:38 PM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"...compared with asbestos poisoning which caused fatal damage for a few individuals." 9,900 in 2002 in USA. "The highly politicized controversy in Washington over asbestos litigation has overshadowed a quiet and directly related crisis in public health: an epidemic of asbestos-caused diseases in the United States that claims the life of one out of every 125 American men who die over the age of 50. Ten thousand Americans die each year -- a rate approaching 30 deaths per day -- from diseases caused by asbestos, according to a detailed analysis of government mortality records and epidemiological studies by the EWG Action Fund. Asbestos kills thousands more people than skin cancer each year, and nearly the number that are slain in assaults with firearms. The suite of diseases linked to asbestos exposure overwhelmingly affect older men." ewg.org