What can we do to help improve science education in the US?

Quote:

Even if only people with IQs over 120 were allowed to reproduce, the spectrum of intelligences would remain just what it is today.

Are you saying that you don't think intelligence is heritable or nurturable?

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Quote:
Even if only people with IQs over 120 were allowed to reproduce, the spectrum of intelligences would remain just what it is today.

Are you saying that you don't think intelligence is heritable or nurturable?

I am saying that within each gene donor (parent) there is a range of intelligences that might be inherited and that there are other issues that might effect intelligence, for example, a baby might be caught in the birth canal for too long and a lack of oxygen might destroy its intelligence.

There are ranges within every heritable trait and sometimes a child is a throwback to a greatgrandparent.

0 Replies

I bet it has a lot more to do with the way the child is raised and taught than just the actual genetics. Certainly the genetics would impose an upper limit but I doubt that most people are using their brain to its full potential.

I think if every child were raised by parents with high IQ's, those children would also (on average) have high IQ's. If a child is raised in such a way that they are interested by learning and understanding, that child will continue to train his brain to be more "intelligent" than someone whos is taught that learning is stupid, and who just occupies all their time watching wrestling.

0 Replies

stuh-

That is tantamount to saying that what you think measures intelligence is what you want to think it is.

How do you know that somebody watching wrestling is not intelligent and learning useful things like not to say "all the time" when they only mean "some of the time".

Like you though I think genetics is a very minor matter compared to socialisation. Chance plays a part. There are 200,000,000 incohate males,they say, to every egg. Suppose "lie back and think of England" is a crude selector. One over-ridden by AID.( At that stage the surgeon can't see the baldy-heads and big ears so common in those who can score 151 on tests they set to highlight their own particular advantages.)

0 Replies

I never suggested one could not learn anything from wrestling.

It is obvious that the mind improves with practice, especially at a young age.

It is, furthermore, obvious that certain activities use the mind for problem solving and understanding more than others.

It is a simple deduction to see that one can then train themselves to become more intelligent, by any measurable standard, by spending all their time as a child attempting to work out and understand challenging mental problems.

Are you honestly this slow or are you just trying to goad me?

0 Replies

Would I ever goad people? Me? A well brought up English gentleman never indulges himself with such easy temptations.

0 Replies

First of all, when one looks at fairly recent history, one discovers that many "geniuses" came from working class homes.

Second, there is some thought that intelligence is inherited through the mother.

Third, what about those super-intelligent parents, with Ivy educations and professional degrees, who leave their children to be cared for either by immigrant women who do not speak English or by teenaged au pairs?

Fourth, stuh, do you know what a Punit Square is? Did you take biology in high school?

0 Replies

Re: What can we do to help improve science education in the

Miller wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Education in general, and science in particular, are key components to the health of US culture (and others). But basic science knowledge, and even the fundamental process of science, seems to be lacking in many students and adults. This is beneficial to those who sell magnetic ionized techno-junk insoles for your shoes to keep your feet healthy. And for those who sell astrology charts and psychic readings, but other than that, it has little benefit to society. What can be done?

Thanks

The very first thing that should be done, is to prevent all half-wits from having any more children. This at the very least will increase the gene pool of more intelligent adults, who hopefully will produce
bright, intelligent children, who can easily learn math and science.

Looks like that may be taking care of itself

Quote:

The Fertility Gap
Ellen Goodman

BOSTON -- Just think of all the time we wasted worrying about the culture gap, the religious gap, the class gap and even the gender gap. Now we are told that the political future will rest in the fertility gap.

This is the latest bulletin from the demography-is-destiny crowd. The fate of red and blue America will come down to who is filling those pink and blue nurseries.

These tidings were brought to us recently by Phillip Longman, who worried in The Washington Post that liberals aren't having enough little liberals: "Conservative, religiously minded Americans are putting far more of their genes into the future than their liberal, secular counterparts."

I never knew there was a conservative gene. If so, can it be tweaked? Is that another reason to support stem cell research?

Longman went on to say, "When secular-minded Americans decide to have few, if any, children, they unwittingly give a strong evolutionary advantage to the other side of the culture divide." Imagine giving an evolutionary advantage to folks who don't believe in evolution..........

for full story see http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/good0916.htm

0 Replies

There are two subjects I wish to address:

1.) I have been saying here that the idiots who have three, four and five kids -- I'm talking about middle-to-upper class suburban professionals -- are ridiculous. A promo for Monday's nightly local news broadcast indicated there would be a story on children entitled, "Three is the new two," meaning families are having more children now.

No matter what the IQ of the parents total, all kids are going to face the same problems. The number of humans on this planet is not sustainable.

2.) I have written about the work being done in genetics that indicates that there is only one human race on several threads. On one thread, someone responded that the fact that some diseases target certain 'races' more than others demonstrates that there are multiple human races.

The word should have populations as geography, environment and economics have to be weighed in.

However, if susceptibility to certain diseases is used as an indicator of race, then men and women are of different races.

0 Replies

RL quoted-

Quote:

Longman went on to say, "When secular-minded Americans decide to have few, if any, children, they unwittingly give a strong evolutionary advantage to the other side of the culture divide." Imagine giving an evolutionary advantage to folks who don't believe in evolution..........

You mean that the anti-IDers will have to f*** us into submission. It's their best, maybe only, chance. Cecil Rhodes said something similar but it isn't PC to repeat it here despite his prestige.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

.... I have been saying here that the idiots who have three, four and five kids -- I'm talking about middle-to-upper class suburban professionals -- are ridiculous. A promo for Monday's nightly local news broadcast indicated there would be a story on children entitled, "Three is the new two," meaning families are having more children now.

No matter what the IQ of the parents total, all kids are going to face the same problems. The number of humans on this planet is not sustainable.........

I am perfectly happy if the many folks who share your opinion desire to have fewer or no children.

You should be free to exercise that right.

I agree with you that the world will be better for it.

0 Replies

My country is officially saying "please have more children"

"....have one for Mum, one for Dad, and one for your country!"
Australian Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello

....and are providing financial incentives to encourage it.

0 Replies

When you say 'financial incentives' , exactly what are you referring to?

In America, it's always been preferential tax treatment in the form of deductions, and now under Bush's sensible program, also some credits.

Is it something more than this?

0 Replies

Similar stuff...cash bonus at birth also. Nothing like paid maternity leave some countries enjoy.

0 Replies

[quote="real lifeI am perfectly happy if the many folks who share your opinion desire to have fewer or no children.

You should be free to exercise that right.

I agree with you that the world will be better for it.[/quote]

Snide, aren't we? I think having more than one or two kids is sheer egotism.

Whatever happened to my-right-to-swing-my-arm-ends-where-your-nose-begins? Never mind responsibility!

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

real life wrote:
I am perfectly happy if the many folks who share your opinion desire to have fewer or no children.

You should be free to exercise that right.

I agree with you that the world will be better for it.

Snide, aren't we? I think having more than one or two kids is sheer egotism.

Perhaps instead of egotism it is love and a desire to share what one has been blessed with (materially, educationally, etc) with children to make the world a better place.

plainoldme wrote:

Whatever happened to my-right-to-swing-my-arm-ends-where-your-nose-begins? Never mind responsibility!

What does it take from you if others have more than two children? How does it impinge your rights at all? You are imagining that something is subtracted from your life if others are allowed to exist?

I probably would not to have to go back too far into your family tree before I find that you are somewhere descended from a third , or fourth, or fifth , or sixth child etc

Good thing for you that they didn't hold to your ridiculous philosophy.

The faulty attitude lies with yourself for trashing those as being 'egotistic' who gave your forebearers life, and thus made it possible for you to live.

0 Replies

plainoldme, Should we be allowed a couple spare, in case we lose one under a bus and the other gets cancer?

0 Replies

I can't see a way in the foreseeable future to stop or better yet, reverse the continued growth of human population on this planet. Considering how the overall opinion regarding China's birth policy is, I doubt if we will ever be able to agree on ways to limit birth control.

What could we do? Perhaps we could create one Birth Control centre in every country, where every parent desiring a kid would have to go to. This can of course be forced by castrating every male baby at birth, so that he will never be able to procastrinate. Then, should offspring be desired, the only way would be to go to this centre, where a woman will be checked for health and number of offspring allready obtained, and if both are found ok, she can be impregnated with the sperm of specifically raised male donors. The woman remains in the cntre until the time of birth, where her health and the health are the baby are checked, and if found ok, they are send home.
Personally, being a male myself, I don't like it. The problem of course is the amount of state control required to make sure no offspring are created without permission. China's way of dealing with this is deemed barbarous. So what alternatives remain available?

0 Replies

real life -- When your grandchildren become Soylent Green, maybe you will understand what I mean.

0 Replies

Let nature take it's course. Famine and disease are quite effective, and don't require anyone to have to make any immoral decisions Smile

....(only an immoral lack of decisions is required Sad

)

Yeah, Soylent Green is another answer !

0 Replies

What can we do to help improve science education in the US?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know