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.
This leads to an obvious question: if we have already set the legal standard that people with an IQ of 70 or below are mentally incompetent, should we allow them to have children? If we allow them to have children, aren't we condemning their children to a life of poor parental care, which inevitably leads to multiple issues, not only for the child but also for society? After all, who will raise their children if the parent can't?
If you don't agree with the idea that low IQ people should be prohibited from having children, then explain how allowing them to have children is workable for society.
And for perspective, 2 percent of the US population, 6.5 million people, have an IQ of 70 or below.
The whole notion of IQ is amorphous - it's hard to pin down hard & fast conclusions. For instance - is mental incompetence inherited? Do parents who are mentally incompetent always have children who are also mentally incompetent?
Language dependence - the classic IQ tests were language based. & so scores for someone who didn't read/write/speak the test language were always thrown off, & lower than if the subject were tested in his/her language.
There are also environment effects. & so on. Before I would be willing to make policy, I'd want much more definitive answers to these questions & related. & besides, we've already been down the eugenics road once before - see War against the weak: eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race / by Black, Edwin.
The US has wrestled with this question before - the results weren't pretty, but were mostly shut down by the Nazi Aryan notion & their attempt to implement a permanent solution & install the Aryan master race in Europe & the World.
The data does show that IQ is inherited. Many disagree with this despite the evidence. Most believe that the environment is more important. In the case of low IQ parents, we are stuck with the same results because they create a poor environment for a child. Whether caused by genetics or the environment, low IQ people have low IQ children.
The distinction is important. If removing a child from low IQ parents means there's a possibility of raising the child's IQ to beyond low, then the state can make a case for removing the child to an enriched environment & one more supportive of developmental cognitive stimulation. That doesn't mean that the parents necessarily lose all parental rights, merely that the state can argue that the child's future welfare would be better served if the state can augment his/her cognitive development - presumably in enriched classes, with trained professional teachers who can work with children with low IQ.
The parents wouldn't lose all their parental rights, except for cause. (Families are very hard to legally disassemble - the states tend to be very leery of removing children from their parents or family caretakers, especially if the caretakers are relatives of the child. This is usually good policy - the parents or near relatives are assumed to have the child's welfare @ heart.)
If cognitive remediation/development isn't possible, or doesn't show enough gain to be worthwhile, then we're on to the next policy question.
The distinction is important. If removing a child from low IQ parents means there's a possibility of raising the child's IQ to beyond low, then the state can make a case for removing the child to an enriched environment & one more supportive of developmental cognitive stimulation. That doesn't mean that the parents necessarily lose all parental rights, merely that the state can argue that the child's future welfare would be better served if the state can augment his/her cognitive development - presumably in enriched classes, with trained professional teachers who can work with children with low IQ.
The parents wouldn't lose all their parental rights, except for cause. (Families are very hard to legally disassemble - the states tend to be very leery of removing children from their parents or family caretakers, especially if the caretakers are relatives of the child. This is usually good policy - the parents or near relatives are assumed to have the child's welfare @ heart.)
If cognitive remediation/development isn't possible, or doesn't show enough gain to be worthwhile, then we're on to the next policy question.
Are they? Compared to authorities in Japan and other countries they seem very eager to do so and will remove kids at the drop of a hat. Removing a child from his or her family for cognitive stimulation is a horrible idea. Just send the kid to preschool for part of the day. No kid needs enrichment from specialists 24/7.
Like many conditions, it is sometimes inherited and sometimes not.
Quote:
Do parents who are mentally incompetent always have children who are also mentally incompetent?
Of course not. If a parent's low IQ results from some illness it might not be passed on at all. And there is also the "regression to the mean" phenomenon, but on the whole low-IQ parents will tend to produce low-IQ children.
Quote:
Language dependence - the classic IQ tests were language based. & so scores for someone who didn't read/write/speak the test language were always thrown off, & lower than if the subject were tested in his/her language.
The distinction is important. If removing a child from low IQ parents means there's a possibility of raising the child's IQ to beyond low, then the state can make a case for removing the child to an enriched environment & one more supportive of developmental cognitive stimulation. That doesn't mean that the parents necessarily lose all parental rights, merely that the state can argue that the child's future welfare would be better served if the state can augment his/her cognitive development - presumably in enriched classes, with trained professional teachers who can work with children with low IQ.
The parents wouldn't lose all their parental rights, except for cause. (Families are very hard to legally disassemble - the states tend to be very leery of removing children from their parents or family caretakers, especially if the caretakers are relatives of the child. This is usually good policy - the parents or near relatives are assumed to have the child's welfare @ heart.)
If cognitive remediation/development isn't possible, or doesn't show enough gain to be worthwhile, then we're on to the next policy question.
What you have proposed has already been tried. Headstart was designed as a program to give young low-income children the stimulant-rich environment that they were lacking at home. After constant failures to raise the IQ scores of children through schooling, it was speculated that these children were handicapped by a by a poor environment at a young age. Headstart was designed to help fix this problem by acting as a pre-preschool for at risk children. The program has been a massive failure. There have been no long term benefits shown by the program and children who participated in the program have actually had worse performance than their peers.
There have also been numerous twin studies that have shown identical twins who are raised apart by adoptive families are more similar in intelligence and personality to each than they are to their adoptive siblings or families.
The greatest environmental influence on IQ is nutrition. After the Korean War, S Korea was one of the poorest nations in the world. The population had an average IQ of 90. Over the next few decades, they saw a rise in IQ that correlated almost perfectly with a rise in height, which was an environmental effect of better nutrition. Now S Korea has one of the highest average IQs in the world.
Throughout most of the United States, an IQ of below 70 is the threshold at which a person is considered mentally incompetent. Persons with an IQ under 70 are held to different legal standards and are not punished at the same level as a person with a higher IQ. In cases of the death penalty, for example, a person with a proven IQ of 70 or lower is usually considered exempt from execution.
This leads to an obvious question: if we have already set the legal standard that people with an IQ of 70 or below are mentally incompetent, should we allow them to have children? If we allow them to have children, aren't we condemning their children to a life of poor parental care, which inevitably leads to multiple issues, not only for the child but also for society? After all, who will raise their children if the parent can't?
If you don't agree with the idea that low IQ people should be prohibited from having children, then explain how allowing them to have children is workable for society.
And for perspective, 2 percent of the US population, 6.5 million people, have an IQ of 70 or below.
Should poor people be allowed to have children? If they can't even afford to take cares of themselves how can they afford to take care of kids. They can't and go on welfare. But it's not for you or any of us to say who should and should not have kids. It's basically, mind you're own business.
Throughout most of the United States, an IQ of below 70 is the threshold at which a person is considered mentally incompetent. Persons with an IQ under 70 are held to different legal standards and are not punished at the same level as a person with a higher IQ. In cases of the death penalty, for example, a person with a proven IQ of 70 or lower is usually considered exempt from execution.
This leads to an obvious question: if we have already set the legal standard that people with an IQ of 70 or below are mentally incompetent, should we allow them to have children? If we allow them to have children, aren't we condemning their children to a life of poor parental care, which inevitably leads to multiple issues, not only for the child but also for society? After all, who will raise their children if the parent can't?
If you don't agree with the idea that low IQ people should be prohibited from having children, then explain how allowing them to have children is workable for society.
And for perspective, 2 percent of the US population, 6.5 million people, have an IQ of 70 or below.
I think the heart wrenching news that we see every other day where some parents brutally torture their own kids, show unimaginable negligence and don't see to care about, is mostly due to drug addiction and alcohol.
Low IQ is perhaps not the issue. Even in the wild African bush, parents don't seem to do what some parents have done to their kids here in the first world.
Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood's founder, was a eugenicist. Many on the Left have no problem with that.
That thinking was very popular then. I'm very well aware that Margaret Sanger was among them. I'm able to understand that it's about a century later and that thoughts evolve. The OP, I doubt, is a fan of Margaret Sanger.
That thinking was very popular then. I'm very well aware that Margaret Sanger was among them. I'm able to understand that it's about a century later and that thoughts evolve. The OP, I doubt, is a fan of Margaret Sanger.
Eugenics simply means trying to improve the gene pool and thus improve the overall human condition. Who wouldn't want that? The problem is in the means that could be used to accomplish this. Obviously some are unethical and should never be employed, but I think it is reasonable to discuss proposals on a case by case basis.
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.
We should pursue all efforts that show success
Nobody takes IQ tests in a foreign language.
