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: Snowshoe who wrote (84853)	12/20/2011 9:16:05 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Respond to of 218147

if so he may not be the right man for the job ;o)

To: Snowshoe who wrote (84853)	12/21/2011 1:44:56 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Respond to of 218147

You are misunderstanding, or misquoting, the Flynn Effect: < I wonder if "Dear Successor" will exhibit Mq's Flynn Effect? The bar is set very low... ;) > It doesn't mean there is improvement from father to son, it means there is a statistical improvement from generation to generation - as you would see if women selected only the top 50% of males for breeding purposes, leaving the rest to be recycled without procreation. It's like breeding race horses, or anything, you choose the best of the litter and repeat the process with them, selecting only the best from each litter. Pretty soon you have got the characteristics for which you are selecting. On average, the best of breed will not produce quite as good in the next litter. So if in fact the recently deceased was great, then most likely, his sons would be not quite as great. They inherit from their mothers too, so on average there is decline. It's only by continued selective breeding that probabilities play out. Mqurice

To: Snowshoe who wrote (84853)	12/21/2011 3:13:09 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 218147

I answered the question: If only the strong survived, why are the weak here still with us today? The best hunter -a valuable member of the hunting band- was not the most intelligent. He was silent, strong and resistant. These hunter guys were reproducing as fast as they could get meat back to the camp, only resting (as eager girls let them :-) to go hunt again. More meat, more girls and so it went. The most intelligent guys where, loud, slow and not much resistant to track and charge the prey. Nobody followed their lead. They were good at sounding alarm -yes they were really loud and good at making sounds- that a dangerous animal was coming at them, that is, they were valuable only when they were hunted! They were fed up with the hunters taking all those girls as fast as they could feed them. Maximum they go for was the older ladies. Until they translated that sound skills in hunting success by: Communicating type of prey, how many and where they were. Then the silent, strong and resistant types would get them faster and more accurately by focusing where the real intelligent guys were pointing them to go. The girls quickly discovered that there was now more meat the type they liked, more constantly available instead of one day feasting one week hungry. The girls discovered they could learn how to make sounds faster than men. They communicated to them the type of meat they should go after and the slow guys could communicate that to the hunting pack during action. Thus they start mating with the intelligent, loud, slow guys. Probably they could tell the guys: put your hand there, yes, yes, right there and they understood :-) Here today the we have highly developed languages plus lots of intelligent guys, loud, slow guys.