When people become more intelligent, they gain more self-control over their impulses, and they are able to impose their personal desires and needs on the genetic imperatives, such as procreation.

This is where it'd break down for me. I'm smart... but when I was younger, my hairy hot dog ran the show.

There are always going to be exceptions to any general rule.

What gets really annoying is finding out that you're the exception to a LOT of general rules of thumb. Dad always wondered why I never found his advice very relevant to my situations....

If a reddit self post is considered a life "rule" now then I may actually be getting too old. Fucking internet. Someone give me a book.

[deleted]

That's all well and good, and conforms to the socially correct template. That's the kind of thing you say to get a little social reward ... a pat on the head and a "good boy!" But it's bullshit. Black basketball players are not very intelligent, as a rule, on any level. If they make normal, it's an achievement for them. That's the reality, which gets me no little pat on the head from the socially correct guard dogs of our society.

Wow, that's pretty racist.

Smart kids get born to dumb parents.

Rarely.

Care to back that up?

Yes.

So nothing conclusive. I.Q. is not inherited by a simple dominant recessive gene combination. It's called polygenic inheritance. It's the same way a child can grow to be taller than both of his parents.

The fact that intelligence is not passed by a single gene/combination is not an argument against the passing on of intelligence as a genetic trait.

Where did I argue against it?

Your statement, 'Smart kids get born to dumb parents', without elaboration and in context sounded like you were rejecting the OP's argument about the tendency of intelligence to act as a hereditary trait. However, I now realize it was merely a semantic debating point.

All I said was rarely, not "never". Learn the difference and you might be as smart as you think.

It's not as rare as you would like to believe.

Care to back that statement up?

It's possible smart people might self select for mates that are smart and vice versa. This would lead to a population with two distinct groups rather than a single group with homogenous characteristics caused by mixed mating and which would result in a tendancy for intelligence to regress to the mean. The selection process could also be reflected/mediated by shared cultural or religious values. Eg. a cultural tradition that places high importance on literacy and learning of it's primary religous texts over thousands of years, and that encourages marriage within the group, could easily acquire and demonstrate higher literacy/verbal ability than the general population.

The selection process could also be reflected/mediated by shared cultural or religious values. Eg. a cultural tradition that places high importance on literacy and learning of it's primary religous texts over thousands of years, and that encourages marriage within the group, could easily acquire and demonstrate higher literacy/verbal ability than the general population.

Indeed. And that culture that placed a high importance on literacy could cease to have children because its members decided that their selfish interests as individuals were more important in their lives than raising a family. You'd have a situation of a very bright population with a very low birthrate, surrounded by a very stupid population with a very high birthrate. the prospects for that bookish cultural tradition would not be promising, in spite of its high intelligence ... unless it made the determination to exclude all ethnic or cultural groups other than its own, and to exterminate groups that threatened the integrity of its national boundaries.

I used to believe it was a disadvantage to be part of a minority. I now think that a smaller group that cooperates/colludes can always take control of a larger group where people in that larger group compete for resources fairly as individuals. It doesn't really need the destruction of the larger group either - although ignorance of the reality of their situation needs to be maintained.

For example, If I am charged to promote someone in a business hiring decision, who would I choose assuming equally capable candidates ?. Someone with whom I have a shared interest, say a family member, or from my own minority cultural background, or perhaps even the same gender. Or would I choose someone completely unknown to me, and who has no other external reason to justify their loyalty to me? There is a much higher chance that a person with whom I have a connection will help to cover my arse if I fuck up, and praise my effort when there is success and this will influence my hiring/promotion decision.

There are other factors, but this sort of subtle and not necessarily explicit cooperation when it is played out over and over again, leads to extended power networks.

Examples are the Mafia (often blood ties at the base) in southern Italy/US, Freemasons in upper levels of government during time of Independence, Catholic cooperation/cooercion in Europe, Skull and Bones/WASPs in intelligence services/business/government, or the influence and power of the Tribe during different periods, to cross promote itself into finance/law/government etc so effectively.

It's quite simple...stroke a mans ego and tell him he's a genius and the pinnacle of achievement. Anything outside the bounds will instantly be dismissed with gusto. But to your point about having children later in life, this is part of the destruction of the family unit that has been going on for the better half of a century. Women working, schooling till you are 30, and those that don't make the cut get caught in the gutter and put to work in prison.

Stupid people, on the other hand, are more driven by instinct and biological imperatives, and they have children often at very young ages, even though this is harmful to their future quality of life.

Are you sure about that? Poor people (you call them dumb people) have a shorter lifespan, they deal with tougher work conditions, low quality food, malnutrition, etc. So by having many kids, they're just ensuring their gene pool will continue. Also by having more kids they can have a family that can go to work and earn for the group.

Trendy rich yuppies wait to have kids, because they have disposable income. They can use their money to travel the world and drink fine wine. Someone in a housing project barely has enough money to live. If anything, having more children will provide more income through a larger welfare benefit and another working body in some years.

Also I've never heard of a study that correlated impulse control and intelligence. There have been plenty of brilliant authors, artists, scientists, philosophers that had poor self control. Maybe they abused drugs or alcohol or had too much sex.

Anyway, just playing devils advocate because I'm bored and your post struck me as someone who just got done watching "idiocracy" and wanted to masturbate their ego.

Also I've never heard of a study that correlated impulse control and intelligence.

Have you ever used your own common sense or judgment for anything? No, of course you haven't.

Educated people, the ones who have the better jobs that bring in more money, are refraining from having children longer, and are having fewer children, than uneducated people with poor jobs or no jobs, who have no money. You don't need a study to show that -- open your eyes and look around.

can you please define intelligent and stupid?

And now look at the bible(The real one in hebrew, not the 1 written a few thousand years later...) and try to argue with that. Lmk when you think of a question that doesn't have an answer in there. Now there could be a hole argument on which bible is the real 1, which religion is the real 1 etc...Well think of it this way...Some people say Jews control everything, in most cases they kind of do((In)directly, trace back freemasonry/iluminati, temple of salomon, kabala etc)...Now these people are also in most cases psychopathic disgusting evil people that use the knowledge in the bible for their deeds, but what if you did it for good?(Which is what it was intended for...)It says man was created in gods image, says god created everything, we as humans are the only species on the planet able to even be aware of everything on our planet and soon further but no where near the entirety of it all(basically everything we see, is something that wasn't there previously, and is now through whatever pattern may apply). It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that man isn't able to act like god(Create beautiful things).

Now this is where being intelligent has to apply. You can't just read something that was written thousands of years ago and still baffles the greatest minds of today, and decide it's bullshit, that's moronic.(Sorry for saying it bluntly but it's exactly the way catholics treated scientists during the dark ages, but the opposite now.)

Excellent post.

What gets really annoying is finding out that you're the exception to a LOT of general rules of thumb. Dad always wondered why I never found his advice very relevant to my situations....