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: elmatador who wrote (8757)	8/30/2006 7:52:41 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 219713

ElM, I am not surprised that you completely got it wrong: <MQ is thinking that a blond guy with little blue eyes and white skin a little gay who doesn't like women is endowed with more brain and hence all the others are morons. Then he is thinking that having ten kids produces 10 geniuses and 1 million produces none. This is far from reality.> Skin and hair colour are a function of sun exposure. Eye colour is just a matter of how the iris is coloured. How you think those are related to brain function is beyond me. But I guess you have your reasons. Yes, there is a correlation, but no causation. Two things can happen at the same time but not be caused by the same thing. On the numbers game you misunderstood what I said there too. But you got the right idea. How you thought I meant the opposite beats me. Of course smart people producing children will automatically produce more smart genes than dull ones having a go at it. But as I pointed out, there are a LOT more normal ones so they are where most of the smart DNA is hiding. So, most of the brainpower production in humanity comes from the middle range, in the big chunk of bell curve. The general rise comes from the very bottom being removed. The few smarties do great things which all of us can use and enjoy and it's not as important whether they have children or not. Note that "smart" is not necessarily creative/thinking. Google can learn a lot and pretty soon will be able to pass exams with high success. But it won't be inventing CDMA, pulsed monocycles, a Segway, CDNA, Qi, or a NUN any time soon. School is mostly a matter of having a good memory. Which is a great adjunct to thinking, but quite a different function. Some people are great at learning and passing exams. But they aren't necessarily equally good at thinking - but of course they are usually better than those who can't learn because the non-learners don't have any data to think about, even if they are good at thinking. Mqurice