Is it good policy to give financial aid to liberal arts majors?

[Whaleboy]

Incredible; you can infer from a discussion on the classics that I wouldnt be able to pass a university mathematics or problem solving course? Clearly only the finest minds could make such an inference.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Incredible; you can infer from a discussion on the classics that I wouldnt be able to pass a university mathematics or problem solving course? Clearly only the finest minds could make such an inference.

No, I make the inference from your complete inability to understand what the discussion is, your complete inability to parse an English sentence in a given context and extract its meaning, and your behavior in the computer thread where you displayed identical fundamental weaknesses in reading comprehension and reasoning.

[GePap]

Originally posted by TCO


BTW, survival versus sexual success: you are making a bit of an odd differentiation here. If you want to, fine. I'll let you have any semantic definition you want. But an evolutionary biologist would not be perplexed or think that sexual success was somehow less than survival. The goal is to make more DNA. Anything that supports that, is a natural selection option. Could be having more babies, could be less, could be pair-bonding, harems, etc. And different conditions will favor different strategies. Actually I see the survival strategies as a bit subordinate to the sexual ones. The survival stuff just gets you into the game. Then you play the game.

It is more than semantics, its a different mechanism. One is a question if whether an animal can survive in its environment long enough to breed successfully. The other is based on behavioral issues within the species. As for your categorization of which is more "important", well, since most beings die well before they are even of mating age, just the ability to survive that long seems the biggest hudle to jump.

Now...maybe your point is about the interaction of a cultural issue (love of intellect) with sexual success. Ok. Still doesn't detract from the idea of seleciton. It's just an external control. I mean forced mating for intelligence breeding would be an even more extreme form of the same thing (from perspective of the DNA).

Who said anything about detracting from selection? I am positing a possible different avenue of selection that might possibnly lead to a genetic difference between populations.

And who ever brough up forced breeding?

As for this issue of sexual selection, as far as I know, most people marry someone within their similar level of education, meaning that out of 100 college educated people, the majority, if obviously not all, will marry someone with a college degree themselves, and most high school graduates will marry high school graduates, and so forth. If we were to assume that there is some underlying genetic difference between these populations (huge and dice inference), it would be curious to see if this leads to different strata of society taking on a more genetic basis...

[Whaleboy]

your complete inability to parse an English sentence in a given context and extract its meaning

What does that mean when its at home? Give an example.

[MRT144]

asher, just because youre smart as a whip doesnt mean your opinion matters, or that you ever deliver it in a pragmatic and acceptable way. work on that.

[Richelieu]

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
What does that mean when its at home? Give an example.

An example is the "effort" and "passing" sentence I highlighte...

asher, just because youre smart as a whip doesnt mean your opinion matters, or that you ever deliver it in a pragmatic and acceptable way. work on that.

If anything I'm guilty of being overly pragmatic.

What I don't like doing is the typical dance of discourse most people engage in for stupid debates. It's just a waste of time, get the ideas out there and let people do what they want with them. A lot of ideas and good arguments get lost in the maze of polite, academic discourse.

GePap and Whaleboy's argument, for instance. It's not going anywhere and it's getting spammy...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Agathon



Well, one could do the usual thing and do the separated twins experiment. But it would need to pass a high bar of empirical evidence for such a controversial thesis.

1. It's useful to think through the experiment that would answer the question. Then look at what has been done. examine the differences and quantify how much the difference affects certitude.

2. You know it almost sounds like you are saying that even for a perfect methodology (I gave you the thought experiment control), that you will need 90% statistics to drive 50% agreement.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


I'm not emotionally attached. It's not my field, I can't say that I particularly care one way or the other. You would experiment as Agathon said, on genetically identical individuals, or a large number of people from the same population, separated at birth and raised in different cultures, against a control group from a different population, and compare average intelligences (gathered from a combination of IQ tests, academic results, net income at a given age etc), and see which has an effect, or which has a greater effect.

What would you predict?

I've done a lot of reading on it, in the hard core science. I would predict that the IQ difference is genetic in nature. I don't think it's proven, nat's ass, but lots of things pointing that way. If on Tradesports, I'd put money on it. More and more we are decoding the genome (or linking the code to expression). The pendulum for many, many aspects of human traits is swinging to nature versus nurture.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Agathon


I was going to start an argument like this in the Kyoto thread, but I don't have time to do it justice.

Don't bother. I've really read and discussed it a lot at a very sophisticated level. It would be painful to me. But if you can get Micheal Mann in here. And have him actually engage. That would be awesome.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap


It is more than semantics, its a different mechanism. One is a question if whether an animal can survive in its environment long enough to breed successfully. The other is based on behavioral issues within the species. As for your categorization of which is more "important", well, since most beings die well before they are even of mating age, just the ability to survive that long seems the biggest hudle to jump.



Who said anything about detracting from selection? I am positing a possible different avenue of selection that might possibnly lead to a genetic difference between populations.

And who ever brough up forced breeding?

As for this issue of sexual selection, as far as I know, most people marry someone within their similar level of education, meaning that out of 100 college educated people, the majority, if obviously not all, will marry someone with a college degree themselves, and most high school graduates will marry high school graduates, and so forth. If we were to assume that there is some underlying genetic difference between these populations (huge and dice inference), it would be curious to see if this leads to different strata of society taking on a more genetic basis...

1. So how does this detract from the hypothesis of geneticly different populations. You've advanced two seperate possibilities for the selection mechanism.
2. Why are you interested/surprised in sexual success versus survivial success? It is not a new insight in evolutionary bio. Both are methods of natural selection.
3. I WAS THE ONE who brought up forced breeding (eugenics). I thought you would be able to follow the similarity with different types of external conditions. See how a "fashion" of who to marry or even direct forcing of who to marry are both examples of the culture interacting with the biology.
4. There is some speculation by researchers that the modern education system, the wide presence of financial aid, etc. is driving more sorting at high IQs. (i.e. others wonder what you do too.)

[GePap]

Originally posted by TCO


1. So how does this detract from the hypothesis of geneticly different populations. You've advanced two seperate possibilities for the selection mechanism.

I advanced three. And I was not arguing with the genetic hypothesis at all. I was advancing a possible connection between Agathon's social observation and a genetic difference.

2. Why are you interested/surprised in sexual success versus survivial success? It is not a new insight in evolutionary bio. Both are methods of natural selection.

Surprised? What are you talking about? Of course I know the difference between sexual and natural selection. I took biology in college.

3. I WAS THE ONE who brought up forced breeding (eugenics). I thought you would be able to follow the similarity with different types of external conditions. See how a "fashion" of who to marry or even direct forcing of who to marry are both examples of the culture interacting with the biology.

Eugenics is not a cultural condition. Its is a breeding program, akin to our reengineering of a variety of domesticated species.

4. There is some speculation by researchers that the modern education system, the wide presence of financial aid, etc. is driving more sorting at high IQs. (i.e. others wonder what you do too.)

My HS biology teacher called college a breeding program for smart people. I know the question is old. I don;t know if anyone is actually trying to study it- might open up a political can of worms.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap


I advanced three. And I was not arguing with the genetic hypothesis at all. I was advancing a possible connection between Agathon's social observation and a genetic difference.

I reorganized your 3. Read back.

Surprised? What are you talking about? Of course I know the difference between sexual and natural selection. I took biology in college.

Sexual strategy and survival strategy are both elements of natural selection. Different strategies for either are indicated by different environments. One environment may select for harem-hoarding males, another environment not.

Eugenics is not a cultural condition. Its is a breeding program, akin to our reengineering of a variety of domesticated species.

Sure it is. Are you saying that it is part of the natural world?

My HS biology teacher called college a breeding program for smart people. I know the question is old. I don;t know if anyone is actually trying to study it- might open up a political can of worms.

There's some. And agreed that the PC aspects might make funding harder. You could Google Scholar it.

[TCO]

GS shows a couple studies addressing the concept. Not much recent. GS usually pretty good too. May be underfunded. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...rriage+sorting

[MRT144]

Originally posted by GePap
My HS biology teacher called college a breeding program for smart people. I know the question is old. I don;t know if anyone is actually trying to study it- might open up a political can of worms.

which is why i want to get into college.