from another thread here: 'superior' genetics creates superior opportunity in life?

[JohnOfSheffield]

Yeah, but at the same time I think this type of mentality also has serious drawbacks, as it makes people strive for much more than they personally could ever need and fuck other people over in the process. Or use their connections and money to push their children into positions other people would be better suited for etc etc. I'd actually argue that the world would probably be better place without that mechanism.

That is entirely natural though, the instinct to take care of your offspring is a natural instinct.

We don't live in a society where this works well though.

The strong and brave become bullies and later robbers and we do not praise their superior genetics.

I can tell you this though, over the course of three decades i have put my life on the line so that my children and even my grandchildren won't ever have a problem.

That taught them something though, i will die with that money in my bank account because they do not need it, my son is in Israel and my daughter will graduate this year, has a two year old daughter that is ... incredible...

They do not need it and when they get it from the will they will probably just save it.

 

[OinkBoink]

.

And i do not have to guess, if you do a search for peer reviewed double blind studies you'll find consistently that those provided with good nutrition and an environment where they learn general things (any normal western school) they have a higher IQ.

Yes, but what if we test only those kids who have been provided with good nutrition etc. and have access to the same resources. Will they all have similar IQs?

For the purpose of discussion, let's assume two children who are genetically different are reared in the absolute same environment (or as similar as they can be). Let's assume they're given the same resources, the same amount of time to prepare etc.

Let's say we're testing for mathematical ability. So both these people will have the same level of mathematical aptitude and score similarly on tests?

Why does Richard Dawkins say that we can produce people who are likely to be good as mathematicians, scientists etc. through inbreeding between mathematicians, scientists etc.?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Yes, but what if we test only those kids who have been provided with good nutrition etc. and have access to the same resources. Will they all have similar IQs?

Yes.

And i'm done explaining everything to you, find good peer reviewed double blind studes and see for yourself.

 

[OinkBoink]

What different scientists say (based on studies) differs as much as the opinions of the people in this thread. I guess the only way to increase your chances of knowing the truth is to perhaps become a scientist yourself (and maybe even that might not work).

 

[Onceler]

I heartily disagree with this. This is a society created, not genetics created situation. Forrest Gump while being fiction does show how someone without good genetics can create their own success. Many people in Dirty Jobs episodes have done such themselves as well. History is full of examples of invention which was taken by someone with superior intellect and drive, and society rewarded them instead of the inventor of an idea, a technology, a concept, a product. A lot of them are either dumb luck (inventor of teflon, vulcanization, et cetra) or by simple exposure to a need (inventor of handheld drills, circular saws, et cetra). Heck even many things we use nowadays were invented by people with disabilities and problems in life that saw something was needed for themselves and those in similar situations.

Necessity is the mother of invention, not genetics. Invention doesn't mean just a new product.

There is some truth to this. Farnsworth died broke. But I am in favor of selective breeding.