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 (100751)	5/24/2013 4:53:29 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Respond to of 218882

Those are unintelligent "researchers". Look at the "reasoning": <So why has there been such a steady drop? As UPI notes, previous research studies have found that women of higher intelligence tend to have fewer children on average, meaning that population growth may be driven by those with a lower IQ. And over time, the abundance of less intelligent offspring would affect the overall IQ average. > It doesn't occur to them that women are not so simple. While PhD women and university graduate women might have had fewer children that average, which would explain a reducing average intelligence, that ignores the fact that women do not reproduce with the bottom decile of male intelligence. Women like the alpha males of intelligence, kindness, wit, wealth, whatnot. Four of them will mate with one bloke, and that's enshrined in Islamic law and was in polygamous USA law not so long ago. In sneaky mating, the babies are usually from illicit but desirable males, again, not from the bottom of the heap. The main action in the gene pool is at the bottom of the heap, and in the middle, where the big numbers are, not at the top, which is just a node of the interference patterns of gene comingling when a confluence of the right stuff fortuitously comes together in an individual. The Flynn Effect is actual science, this retrospective analysis of reaction times from Victorian times is half-baked at best and is not measuring intelligence. Reaction time is not intelligence. It's a correlation. To measure intelligence, it's better to measure actual intelligence, not reaction time. Especially if the measurement is a faulty measurement from 150 years ago. en.wikipedia.org Mqurice

To: Snowshoe who wrote (100751)	5/24/2013 11:19:18 PM
From: elmatador	1 Recommendation Respond to of 218882

The gains were related to moving from rural to urban. Once urbanized can't move up the scale. It is simple: A rural person put up fences in the US in 1860. They've doing that since they arrived from Europe. His son used the same fence building skills to put poles for transmission of electricity and copper wires for telephones. Thus his son by moving from an low IQ environment to higher IQ environment, got cleverer. His son fought the WWII and get into electronics, vacuum tube technology and kept going up the scale. The IQ growing was necessary to live productively in the modern world created by the Industrial Revolution p Once all the gains have been realized, by 1960, their brains went into idle. They could not find challenges to move up the scale. From here on is down hill, amigo. A return to the rural irrational outlook, notice people believing in Mayan calendar, and environmentalism...