What do you consider more important.....

[jgk3]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Good. I like what I have to work with.

I'd like to remind you that my argument wasn't meant to say there is no biological component.

Anyhow, the issue arises now is, what kind of mental traits do these intelligent members of society have? Are they exceptionally strong in one sense and weak in the other, or are they highly adaptive to all?

If they were adaptive, don't you think they'd find a solution to their current displacement in modern culture?

[Anonymouse]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Good. I like what I have to work with.

I'd like to remind you that my argument wasn't meant to say there is no biological component.

Anyhow, the issue arises now is, what kind of mental traits do these intelligent members of society have? Are they exceptionally strong in one sense and weak in the other, or are they highly adaptive to all?

If they were adaptive, don't you think they'd find a solution to their current displacement in modern culture?

They are not the ones often times dictating social policy. As we all know government is based on force, and often times it is run not by the most intelligent ones, but by the most profane and vile ones.

Let's take your family as an example. From you, I gather you are very intelligent, and thereby a product of intelligent parents and genes. How many children did your parents have?

Then, let's compare you to your run of the mill Mexican family you would see in L.A. You should see the dad, the mom, and 2 kids walking, 2 in a stroller, and one in her stomach still pregnant.

[jgk3]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

I see your point...

So when it comes down to it, you want the intelligent people to dictate social policy. What are we supposed to do about the profane and vile rulers we have? Their ruthlessness gives them an advantage when it comes to assuming power.

[Anonymouse]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

I see your point...

So when it comes down to it, you want the intelligent people to dictate social policy. What are we supposed to do about the profane and vile rulers we have? Their ruthlessness gives them an advantage when it comes to assuming power.

I don't know where it begins, but I know that there is a beginning. Perhaps the beginning must come from the end. But then, might it be too late? What is the fate of the Armenian man, and since we live in the Western land, the fate of the Western man? It is doom and calculated chaos.

Intelligence is a territory on old and forbidden maps. It is not esteemed by modern man. What is esteemed are all the weak, degenerate and vile values. "Democracy", "happiness", "equality", and all the other weak and degenerate forces that make man mediocre and the same and a nice horizontalism of sameness.

The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.

~ Kurt Vonnegut

[lucedelaluna]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

I'd like to see someone who has traveled the globe try to decypher the human DNA or come up with an algorithm on the same level of public key encryption.

When you travel, you see and experience the world in a very broad sense. When you dedicate a major part of your life to get a Ph.D, you supposedly gain a very in-depth knowledge of a very particular subject (you become the expert), while at the same time exercising and developing your mind to think very critically, communicate, and to innovate.

Either way, both can be enlightening experiences.

But my question is, why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both?

First off I should have defined what was considered intelligence in the discussion with my friends. Perhaps intelligence was the wrong word to use now that I think about it. What we were trying to define is a person that is mature, able to communicate effectively, and has gained an awareness of his/her surroundings. Perhaps wise? I'm not sure if even I can choose the right word to describe it. I guess someone that sees the world differently because of his/her travels compared to someone that has spent most of his/her life studying books for a "degree" certifying intelligence as defined by society.

[Anonymouse]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

First off I should have defined what was considered intelligence in the discussion with my friends. Perhaps intelligence was the wrong word to use now that I think about it. What we were trying to define is a person that is mature, able to communicate effectively, and has gained an awareness of his/her surroundings. Perhaps wise? I'm not sure if even I can choose the right word to describe it. I guess someone that sees the world differently because of his/her travels compared to someone that has spent most of his/her life studying books for a "degree" certifying intelligence as defined by society.

The word you're looking for is knowledgeable, cultivated, well-rounded, etc.

[lucedelaluna]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Intelligence is biological. That is why intelligent people produce intelligent offspring. That is also why low class and unintelligent people produce the same low quality and en masse. There is a truth in eugenic or dysgenic breeding. Society, at least modern welfare warfare state, promotes dysgenic breeding by supporting the lower end population. By social legislation, programs, welfare, etc., it supports the growth of the low class, the poor, the unintelligent and the uncultivated ones. Hitler was right in one thing and that was his policy of not supporting the latter.

Though I agree with you that intelligence has a biological component. There is also an environmental component necessary. If intelligence were simply biological, as in one does or does not have a "smart" gene, then any person born with this gene would turn out intelligent without the need of a nurturing environment. However this is not true, without the resources necessary, a person can not become intelligence.

Also, though genetics defines many aspects of a human's characteristic, environment helps decide which traits will and will not be expressed. Using genetic coding, there have been many similarities found in certain parts of people with similar personalities. However, one can not simply take out these similar parts and spice them into a baby expecting the same thing. Look at identical twins for example, there are those that have very similar defining characteristics. There are also identical twins that are very different. This is all a matter of the environment the children were raised in. Bottom line, genetics defines the resources a child has available, what the child CAN become, environment defines which of these resources WILL become characteristics.

And it is also premature to define intelligence as simply as a few code sequences in the DNA. Then it is just as easy to, for example, in the future demand the DNA codes of job candidates in addition to resumes. (I am just giving an example here, but it would be something like the world seen in GATTACA). Something as complex as intelligence should never be enclosed in the strict boundaries of a simple definition, such as "the possession of specific DNA sequence(s)."

Going back to your example of smart parents having smart children. If intelligence is simply biological, why is it that there are children born in these families that are not intelligent. I realize this is the exception, but if it is just a matter of genetics, similar genes should yield similar results.

One needs both the biological genetic aspects and the environment. However a nurturing environment is much more important than having the genetic code of an intelligent person. Any human can learn, it is a survival tactic. However without the resources necessary, this is impossible, no matter how many "intelligent" genes one possesses.

[lucedelaluna]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

The word you're looking for is knowledgeable, cultivated, well-rounded, etc.

ok perfect, all these things, which to me encompass intelligence. But I guess intelligence is defined different for every person.

[lucedelaluna]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

I don't know where it begins, but I know that there is a beginning. Perhaps the beginning must come from the end. But then, might it be too late? What is the fate of the Armenian man, and since we live in the Western land, the fate of the Western man? It is doom and calculated chaos.

Intelligence is a territory on old and forbidden maps. It is not esteemed by modern man. What is esteemed are all the weak, degenerate and vile values. "Democracy", "happiness", "equality", and all the other weak and degenerate forces that make man mediocre and the same and a nice horizontalism of sameness.

The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.

~ Kurt Vonnegut

Actually the need for democracy, happiness, and equality is what has been the motivation for the actions of many intelligent men to create the changes we enjoy today. Look at Martin Luther King, Jr. for example, and the many other important figures that have caused "change." Most of these changes were due to the oppression these people felt was unfair. And even though in Vonnegut's story intelligence is not valued, Harrison's need for democracy, for happiness, is what causes him to separate himself from his "equality weights" and be free. Thus intelligence can not fully be expressed without the nurturing of a proper environment providing the motivation.

[Anonymouse]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Though I agree with you that intelligence has a biological component. There is also an environmental component necessary. If intelligence were simply biological, as in one does or does not have a "smart" gene, then any person born with this gene would turn out intelligent without the need of a nurturing environment. However this is not true, without the resources necessary, a person can not become intelligence.

Also, though genetics defines many aspects of a human's characteristic, environment helps decide which traits will and will not be expressed. Using genetic coding, there have been many similarities found in certain parts of people with similar personalities. However, one can not simply take out these similar parts and spice them into a baby expecting the same thing. Look at identical twins for example, there are those that have very similar defining characteristics. There are also identical twins that are very different. This is all a matter of the environment the children were raised in. Bottom line, genetics defines the resources a child has available, what the child CAN become, environment defines which of these resources WILL become characteristics.

And it is also premature to define intelligence as simply as a few code sequences in the DNA. Then it is just as easy to, for example, in the future demand the DNA codes of job candidates in addition to resumes. (I am just giving an example here, but it would be something like the world seen in GATTACA). Something as complex as intelligence should never be enclosed in the strict boundaries of a simple definition, such as "the possession of specific DNA sequence(s)."

Going back to your example of smart parents having smart children. If intelligence is simply biological, why is it that there are children born in these families that are not intelligent. I realize this is the exception, but if it is just a matter of genetics, similar genes should yield similar results.

One needs both the biological genetic aspects and the environment. However a nurturing environment is much more important than having the genetic code of an intelligent person. Any human can learn, it is a survival tactic. However without the resources necessary, this is impossible, no matter how many "intelligent" genes one possesses.

Intelligence is biological, as displeasing and disheartening it is to the "social justice" advocates. Knowledge is the acquisition of facts, but intelligence is the biological potential to understand and to learn. There are huge variations in levels of intelligence between individuals within a race and between different races, communities and families. Intelligence is inherited.

A nurturing environment, is in fact, not as important, as the biological propensity for intelligence. I have already stated that while environment, to a very limited degree, heightens the awareness of or amplifies ones intelligence, it is simply a matter of biology. After all, why is it that time and time again blacks consistently scored lower on IQ tests than whites or Asians, nevermind that Asians score higher than whites? Also, blacks have always been more disproportionately involved in crime than any other racial group. Environment does not account for many of these things. Environment does not account for why Africa is still a crap hole after all these centuries and why high civilization never blossomed there.

Back to the point, intelligent people breed intelligent children. If you want to encourage and improve the intelligence of the next generation you can do this by encouraging the intelligent people to have more children, and discouraging the unintelligent from having children. Exceptions to the rule, that some intelligent people may breed morons, do not disprove the rule. Our civilization in the form of the welfare state saves the misfits. It is a 'humanising' process which sustains and subsidises the weak, the helpless, the criminals, the morons, the idiots and the inadequates. In the name of 'pity' and 'equality' and other bogus ideas, these elements of the population are a burden carried by the more capable elements.

By encouraging the lower elements to procreate, the government and society thereby helps them to sustain and perpetuate there genes thereby lowering the quality of the population. We can easily observe that the population on average is now less intelligent than they were 100 years ago. Biology always trumps ideology.