Eugenics

[Psykhronic]

My understanding is that IQ is used as a predicting tool and a measure of capacity. Scoring in the 99th percentile means jack shit if you don't bother learning and expanding upon your foundations.

[Jackalope]

[EgoRaptor]

Any other eugenicists here?

[KUSA]

People are starting to think you are crazy.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

IQ is a very narrow form of intelligence, we don't understand enough about intelligence to even measure it. With some life experience (not much compared to most of you on this forum), I've realized that intelligence gives you a huge edge but hard work is what seals the deal. It doesn't carry you anywhere if you don't put the work into it, and this is coming from someone who has never had difficulty learning anything from science to art to languages (not the same as gaining expertise in these fields). Nobody wants to hire someone who learns fast but doesn't have a work ethic. They're really quite useless. So while intelligence is a definite asset, work is what got all of us here. All the scientific breakthroughs had many undergraduates toiling away in labs namelessly and often without pay. Same goes to all the other industries that keep mankind alive. I don't like people with high IQs who think they're superior. A cleaner saves more lives than a professor on a daily basis by keeping our environment clean and sanitary. As for eugenics, we all practice eugenics by picking our partner, that is your one vote, you don't get to control other people's breeding habits.

[Angrboda]

Do you believe that, "humanity advances through a struggle in which superior groups (race or classes) triumph over inferior ones?" (Steven Pinker)

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Do you believe that, "humanity advances through a struggle in which superior groups (race or classes) triumph over inferior ones?" (Steven Pinker)

Me?

Well .. hm. You could really only agree or disagree with that statement with hindsight though. Whether a group of people is superior or inferior to others is subjective and depends largely on the environment and circumstances. Many of us would not fare well if we were transported back to medieval times, so they're superior to us in terms of survival in that period. But in general, with hindsight (and bias), of course the groups of people that allowed us to get where we are today would be considered superior and we would think that their triumphs allowed advances such as ourselves to be alive. But then of course the winners would have a greater hand in shaping the future and make it suit themselves better ... so. I think it's like evolution, doesn't really have a direction without the benefit of hindsight.

And advancement is owed to accumulation of knowledge, not so much that people in general became better and smarter people, IMO. Although I think IQs have been going up lately, but I think maybe we're just teaching people in ways that increase the type of intelligence measured in IQ tests because I don't think evolution happens that quickly unless selection is really strong.

[EgoRaptor]

Do you believe that, "humanity advances through a struggle in which superior groups (race or classes) triumph over inferior ones?" (Steven Pinker)

Yes, I accept the scientific Marxist approach to history.

[houseofcantor]

What is peculiar is that those most likely to be culled by eugenics are those who support eugenics.

No. It's stupid.