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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (3266)	1/12/2006 4:08:07 PM
From: Crabbe	Respond to of 219674

"But perhaps it's just that Dutch women have put great importance on tall me. Japanese women haven't done that. Nor have Italian. Nor have Pygmy. It doesn't seem to be just a matter of nutrition, though just over the Dutch border are the Belgians, who are shorter and rounder, which I had ascribed to lack of canals and a fondness for Belgian chocolates. Maybe it's sexual selection, not canals and chocolates. " You continue to ignore the fact that while the most desirable women by male standards can pick and chose which male they wish to breed with, those less desirable must moderate their standards and breed with less desirable men, and those least desirable must of course mate with males that are least desirable. But, the fact remains they all reproduce. Contrary to popular opinion on this thread the rich do not reproduce at greater levels than the poor. The reverse is true world wide (sans the rich guy in Thailand). Europe has ceased to maintain it's population thru breeding, The US is approximately at stasis. Third world countries to the contrary continue to breed and reproduce at high rates. In the USA the birth rate / 1000: white non hispanic 57.4 women of childbearing age Black non Hispanic 67.4 " American indian 58 " Asian or Pacific Islander 64.1 " Hispanic 94.4 " cdc.gov Therefore your Idea that we are selectively breeding for intelligence would seem to me to be fallicious. r

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (3266)	1/12/2006 5:43:18 PM
From: Crabbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219674

"On learning speed and IQ, while smart people learn faster, time itself isn't sufficient. Even with a longggg time, a chimp can't solve simultaneous equations. It's simply outside the scope of their intellect. SAT tests aren't a matter of learning [more than to a small extent]. They are intellectual gymnastic tests. People study SATs and still can't do them. A smart 12 year old can learn a few simple rules in a couple of hours and do really well on the maths test while a dull 18 year old can slog as long as they like and won't be able to beat the 12 year old. First we are talking sort of about two different learning times. I was referring to single task learning, while you are thinking of looooonnnnnggggg term learning. In school I learned quickly, I nearly never did homework unless it was something that required more effort such as a term paper. Or perhaps something like Science that was to me fun. I think this is probably the same for most, as learning is work we only devote the amount of time learning that is required to meet the requirements, unless it is fun. Even in College maintaining a near 4.0 I never read a textbook, I referred to them only occasionally. While I do not remember the statistics exactly, the study that I was trying to remember was done by the US Army during WWII. The minimum standard IQ accepted was 80. The study was teaching field striping and reassembling the M1 Carbine. The number of repetitions required declined with rising IQ, Below 80 it was nearly impossible to teach and at an IQ of 115 it took only one repetition. As I remember an decrease of 6 points doubled the repetition count. I am not positive that it was 6 and I tried to Google the report and could not. As far as The SAT and ACT it is my understanding: They correlate closely with IQ tests. They are more tests of knowledge than intellectual gymnastics. IQ tests are more tests of Intellectual gymnastics. If IQ is the measure of innate intelligence, it would basically be unchanged over the course of ones life. Studies support that assumption. IQ varies by <10 points day to day and long term. Early learning programs (Head Start) increase IQ for first graders, but by adulthood all advantage is lost. The present edition of Scientific American has an article on birth hormones and intelligence in the mother. Cortex folding is shown to be greater in rats raised with a rich environment as opposed to rats raised in a bare environment. Those advantages of the rich environment are wiped out however with advent of pregnancy and birth, the bare environment rats catch up. The study further showed that mothers were much better at foraging and running mazes than virgins. Questions: Did the Flynn study account for age??? Most IQ tests are administered to children and young adults. Does the Flynn Effect extend into middle age??? Old age??? Perhaps you can explain the Flynn Effect by richer environment. Or conversely and this is perhaps a better explanation, many many many industrial chemicals and plastics are estrogen and other mostly female sex hormone analogs. They have greatly polluted our environment. As an example of this pollution, otters on the lower Columbia River in Oregon and Washington are in danger of extinction because they are being born with increasingly smaller and smaller penises and testes, in many cases the penis is to small to copulate, this effect is due to dioxin, and insecticide, and other pollutants in the river below Portland. fresc.usgs.gov The pollution effect could be true, as brain surface area is most closely associated with intelligence. Folding of the brain was shown to be increased with the rat pregnancy. Evidence indicates that some of these effects carry over to women.