Study finds the "Flynn effect" has reversed and people born since 1975 are increasingly dumb (Iran, high school)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You seem to believe that low IQ's are the cause of those things. It makes far more sense that those things were the cause of the lower IQ's(especially the drugs).
And meth and opiate abuse are predominantly being used by whites, who have a higher average IQ than blacks..
Not backed by history.
For 400 years our country has been divided into class, and most people don't fall in the upper one! It always took MANY of the lower and illiterate classes to support the lifestyles of the Planters...or the Factory owners, etc.
The large white populations that settled the Cumberland Plateau were illiterate. Their parents over in England and Ireland were illiterate. They knew no trades. They bred only with themselves and were very good at it (had lots of kids). But they had to be have been low IQ if they couldn't read...generation after generation. Hard to imagine them playing much chess...
These same populations eventually did learn to read but often not much more. They went up north for jobs (Detroit, Chicago) and now are those opiate and meth addled masses.
This would seem to be to be a population where the IQ and Education level has risen...but not enough and too late unless a serious program(s) are followed to accelerate it.
No, high IQ isn't everything. But what is...is the efficiency of making use of human capital. If a smart child is born in poverty or Appalachia or the slums of our cities I want to see him extracted and watered like a flower. This then cuts the cord with ignorance.
yes, religion certainly helps (even today) convince people that their lives are worth losing for some King or sage.
Not only does it encourage people to fight, but it encourages them to have children. The government needs both soldiers and what my friend calls "tax soldiers"(IE obedient workers).
Had Europe been atheist in 600 AD, its population would have been dying, and it would have been easily conquered by Muhammad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
What I don't see is where this matters. You seem to admit at the end of your rant that most intelligent people in the USA tend to not be strongly religious....yet not put any value judgement on it.
I think liberals like to believe that smart people become liberal because they are smart. In reality, smart people become liberal when they perceive that liberalism coincides with their interests.
Likewise, smart people become conservatives when conservatism benefits them. And smart people become libertarians when libertarianism benefits them. Which is why there are smart conservatives, smart libertarians, etc.
What irritates me about liberals is their constant self-aggrandizement. They love to tell everyone how smart they are, and how dumb everyone else is. I don't see libertarians behaving that way.
The Romans were successful, but they held themselves together through greed and force only. It was a massive slave society that was constantly trying to tear itself apart.
The Romans were basically forced to convert to Christianity in an attempt to save the empire from collapse, although it collapsed anyway.
To understand why the Roman Empire was doomed to collapse, and why Christianity was so successful, you have to simply ask the question, "Why does anyone obey the government?"
For the Romans the answer was simple, obey or we kill you, brutally. Which works in a slave society, but a slave society is inherently unstable, and can never progress much beyond basic agriculture.
To have a modern society, you need people to more-or-less obey/cooperate voluntarily.
The key to the success of Christianity, in my opinion, was "Romans 13". Which effectively established the doctrine of "Divine Right of Kings". Basically, obey the government because god wants you to obey.
This allowed for much more cooperation/organization. Though, in a sense, it was a way of enslaving people without them realizing they were enslaved. Romans 13 turned Christians into good little sheep, who toiled for god, even though they were really toiling for the state.
Also, Christianity established a "moral-consensus" or a "social-consensus" which pressured people into conformity, but this came organically from within the people themselves, not the state. There was enormous social-stigmas which helped to keep people within an acceptable range of behavior.
The reason Western-style democracy works, is that they were able to transition from "authority from god" to "authority from the people", which kept state power but allowed for more diversity(IE a bigger country). This was true in both western-democracies, and even in communist societies, where they claimed they were doing the will of the people.
As it became increasingly-obvious that the communist societies weren't by the will of the people, and without a religious basis, all the communist governments had available was force, reducing people to effectively slaves.
If people aren't doing what benefits our government voluntarily, the government must resort to force. It has no choice. And once the scaffolding of religion falls away, and with all the division, and with fewer people having faith that our government is by the will of the people, the only thing that can hold this country together, will be greater and greater government force.
"No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian Religion. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance, we will then, be surely doomed." - John Jay
You can only ever be free to do good. You either have to do good voluntarily, or be forced. And good means whatever benefits the state.
I don't think an atheist society can be sustained, because there is no basis for the legitimacy of its authority(as the saying goes "you can't legislate morality"). It will constantly be trying to tear itself apart, and would inevitably become a despotic state, which would become a slave-state, which will inevitably collapse.
At least that is my reading of history.
Great synopsis!
I would add that voluntary acceptance of social order not only allows for more sophisticated individual behaviors, but it's much cheaper than a police state. Police states are fantastically expensive to run, leaving less surplus for productive investment.
These same populations eventually did learn to read but often not much more. They went up north for jobs (Detroit, Chicago) and now are those opiate and meth addled masses.
Look, plenty of very intelligent people are addicted to meth and opiates. If I was to guess, the average IQ of someone addicted to opiates is probably above average(at least before they became addicted).
Meth is definitely more of a white trash thing. The rich are all on cocaine.
But regardless of what the potheads think, drug use isn't pushing the average IQ up. And drug-abuse in general is an epidemic these days for all socio-economic backgrounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
No, high IQ isn't everything. But what is...is the efficiency of making use of human capital. If a smart child is born in poverty or Appalachia or the slums of our cities I want to see him extracted and watered like a flower.
I would agree with you halfway. I believe that using what exceptional talent we have is necessary for the success of this country.
But, you don't need everyone in your country to have an IQ for 160. If everyone had an IQ of 160 it would actually be pretty ****ty.
Not only does it encourage people to fight, but it encourages them to have children. The government needs both soldiers and what my friend calls "tax soldiers"(IE obedient workers).
Had Europe been atheist in 600 AD, its population would have been dying, and it would have been easily conquered by Muhammad.
I think liberals like to believe that smart people become liberal because they are smart. In reality, smart people become liberal when they perceive that liberalism coincides with their interests.
Likewise, smart people become conservatives when conservatism benefits them. And smart people become libertarians when libertarianism benefits them. Which is why there are smart conservatives, smart libertarians, etc.
What irritates me about liberals is their constant self-aggrandizement. They love to tell everyone how smart they are, and how dumb everyone else is. I don't see libertarians behaving that way.
To the first bit, very much yes. I had a conversation with my son not long ago. We were discussing how abortion and birth control access are such hot political topics and so on. I told him that of course, conservatives wanted women to have less access to birth control. They try to say that women should not be having sex if they don't want babies, but everyone knows people are going to have sex. The real agenda is for kids to be born to parents who don't have the resources to get them well educated or give them much of a future. Because you know one very likely place for a lot of those kids to end up? The military.
He was somewhat stunned into silence and had to go have a think about it.
Also, there is a program that a lot of folks don't seem to know about, an alternative to the military to get some skills and a boost for kids who don't come from generous circumstances, or the young adult who is failing to launch. Job Corps. My son is there learning welding right now.
As to the last bit now, libertarians behaving as though they are smarter than everyone else? Oh now. You have no idea. All the cool kids here in Colorado are libertarians. I know SO many people who voted for Gary Johnson and many who lord their alleged smarts over others.
Personally I was rooting for John McAfee from the bottom of my wicked, hedonistic little soul, and I won't even lie about it. He was delightfully awful.
I told him that of course, conservatives wanted women to have less access to birth control.
I am conservative minded but I want people to have access to more birth control. Always amusing when "of course" is followed by a false statement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
