Migrants make germany dumb

[Heraclitus]

The definition of both words are now identical and interchangeable. They refer to discrimination and antagonism based on ethnicity, especially the belief that one race is superior to another.

It seems I didn't check enough or recent enough dictionaries.


Well then I'm not racialist, or should I say I'm racialist in the old sense of the word. Or should I say the nonBritish meaning.
[According to the wiktionary racialist is in British English a old variation of racist]

The guy specifically states this is "especially the belief that one race is superior to another".

I belive no such thing and have argued against such ideas vigorously in the past. If it makes you feel better I can call myself a HBDer thought that is just nerdy.

Regardless a rose by any other name... can you please heed my previously stated point and debate the on topic posts? If you feel like it you can start a [serious] thread discussing my supposed racialism or racism or whatever.

[VetLegion]

With regards to human societies, many (most? all?) have not yet reached the
level of technological sophistication where supply of high IQ individuals would
be the limiting factor in achieving further growth in living standard.

[Heraclitus]

With regards to human societies, many (most? all?) have not yet reached the
level of technological sophistication where supply of high IQ individuals would
be the limiting factor in achieving further growth in living standard.

This is true. However what about the rate of that future growth of living standard? Also suppose our average IQ slips below the point where we can consistently use contraceptives? Classic malthusian trap if we don't find a way to break down complex tasks and especially break down the process of breaking down complex tasks into simpler bits fast enough as the average IQ falls.



BTW The happy time I refered to previously was meant as their ability to contribute to the advancement of science and technology (perhaps virulent memplexes as well) in such a way that it dosen't take away from economic growth.

If you recall I specifically stated that Europeans have been enjoying gains in material comfort and productivity well past the end of our "happy time".




There are only so many high IQ people around. Would you rather use them to run your complex economy or go and work at the CERN?

[VetLegion]

But no economy is so complex that it needs many high-IQ people to
run. Jobs that produce stuff aren't that demanding. I've just seen a
documentary on the Bugatti Veyron. It's a complex machine, but it's
not that difficult to assemble. In fact, only 17 people work in the
assembly plant:

[Heraclitus]

We know how to break down assembly into simple steps. Same goes for farming.



What about financial decisions? What about R&D? What about surgeons?


Anyway this is arguing the idea that IQ is the limit to growth (which it isn't and won't be for some time)
, I much prefer to argue about the rate of growth.


I'm saying you get a marginal benefit to job performance for being smarter even if your job is sweeping floors.
The benefit is larger the more complex the job is.


The benefit of very smart people doing research (to the economy) may be smaller than having those people
go and be an investors or CEOs.


Also another aspect of the "happy time" argument was that in the past economic growth that outstripped population
growth increased average IQs making it easier to maintain the economy with the less genetically gifted, decreasing
the utility of having the most gifted sweep flores.

But now we've reached the end of the Flynn rainbow, and even worse this may be because our genotypical inteligence is
declining.

[VetLegion]

Rise in living standards is what what we are after. We have not yet
reached the limits of rising living standards. In most of the developing
world the limiting factor is not availability of technology, nor lack of
supply of high IQ people.

In Africa in particular, I believe that the limiting factor is bad governance.
If Africa becomes filled with entities which are governed by the consent
of the governed, which normally happens only in nation-states, we should
see their growth rates improve.

[Heraclitus]

Yes, this is true.

My argument is just that we will probably see only one or two African Gausses even under ideal conditions and that people at the cutting edge in high culture, science and technology will most likley
be Jewish or East Asian. This means countries with the most Jews or the most East Asians living under the
best conditions will have the greatest prestiege. And that then after a while as we pick all the low hanging fruit
technological progress will stop, unless we resort to AIs or genetic engineering.

We are bleeding quite bady with regards to the number of people with IQs over 135.

Global average IQ bleeding is much slower due to development and the Flynn effect
barley a 1 per decade.




The real problem we may face is that massive Genetic engineering of inteligence or AI may become too
difficult to do safley in the window of time we have (since AI is so hard we may
be past that window already or would perhaps need a population that is X times bigger than
our current one).


As to your comment on nation-states. Isn't basically the entire developed world with
the exception of Japan and South Korea going away from this model?

[VetLegion]

I don't think it's so simple with Gausses. I'm familiar with the standard deviation
stuff, but after a certain threshold I think IQ numbers don't mean that much. That
is, by inflating a population, you won't get more Gausses. Gauss was not 2 or 3
deviations from the mean, he was simply a guy with a weirdly wired brain. To be
more precise: I think that if you cloned him in 100 copies, you'd probably get
100 smart people, but not another Gauss.

In any case, Africa doesn't need a Gauss to achieve economic growth, Germany
didn't need him either after all. It was not so much scientists that carried the
first industrial revolution as it was engineers and technicians.

[VetLegion]

And that then after a while as we pick all the low hanging fruit
technological progress will stop, unless we resort to AIs or genetic engineering.

I can't dispute that, except for the fact that I don't think I will live to
see this stagnation. We have at least a century or more of progress
(in living standards) simply by applying the knowledge and technology
discovered so far.

The diminishing returns argument is valid, of course.

[Heraclitus]

Again It seems we disagree about how usefull
inteligence is for things like engineering, investing
or hearth surgery vs. the benefit of additional
reashearch.

Since you want to debate economic effects, very well
lets debate them.


Low IQ people have external costs outside job performance.
Crime for starters. Health for another. Employment potential
for antoher. Likleyhood of living on welfare.
Rioting. Stability. Corruption. Ect.

Also even today. Are you saying that if you created a picture
perfect replica of the Japanese isles, populated them with people
with IQs in the low 80s educated them nearly as well as the Japanese
as you could that in 10 years income per capita would not
be biger in Japan than in DumbJapan?


Now suppose you replaced 50% of Japanese with DumbJapanese.
Would the improvment in standard of living decrease in Japan?
Would crime rise? Would the country loose clout over time?

[Heraclitus]

BTW Thanks for arguing with me on the pet theory, I need people to discuss
it with to get rid of muddled thinking.

The idea that differences between higher IQ people's where smaller when
society was simpler seems attractive but comparing individual humans and
how they perform on jobs with peoples and the civlizations they build
is stretching matters.

[VetLegion]

I don't think that all dumb people are violent, nor that propensity
for crime or violence increases (linearly or otherwise) as IQ decreases.

"Tameness" may well be partially inherited, but I don't think it's the same
thing as intelligence.

[Heraclitus]

"Tameness" may well be genetic, but I don't think it's the same as
intelligence.

I agree.

I don't think that all dumb people are violent, nor that propensity
for crime or violence increases (linearly or otherwise) as IQ decreases.

I disagree.

Lower IQ people tend to for example be more easily addicted to new
synthetic drugs that no one has been selected for. It may well be
there are genes that will help you with that, there are also probably
genes that help you control your temper or be more mindfull of social
pressure but seeing ways in which you can release your rage and hurt
someone not by punching them but by hurting them in a more abstract
way or how to navigate social landscapes more gracefull are probably
correlated with the ability of abstract reasoning.


I don't think the link between IQ and criminality is just an artefact.

[VetLegion]

BTW Thanks for arguing with me on the pet theory, I need people to discuss
it with to get rid of muddled thinking.

In my opinion you (not you in particular) need to develop a sense for
magnitude. That is, among several factors that are all true, which ones
actually effect the outcomes and in what proportions.

Sure, it's true that intelligence is very much inherited, it's true that it's
important, it's true that we can measure some aspects of it, but are the
correlations we get all that explanatory? I think that in most cases
they are rather weak, too weak for strong conclusions.

[VetLegion]

I disagree.

Lower IQ people tend to for example be more easily addicted to new
synthetic drugs that no one has been selected for.

Do you know of a non-US study that would confirm that? I don't
intuitively see why it would be so.