Apr 11, 2022·edited Apr 11, 2022Liked by Graham Seibert
I am really, really hoping that you are wrong about the vaccines. I hear a lot of people jusr casually announce that the vaccines will do all sorts of harm as if it were some sort of internet game or debate where if you are right you get to be smug. They don't seem to understand that if they are right, it will be appalling and it will directly and brutally effect them as their societies degenerate into chaos.
And, assuming that the vaccines don't have the terrible impacts that I fear and so many commentators (Mr Seibert excepted) seem to be self righteously hoping for, then we face a real demographic winter. I find this peculiarly fascinating as I actually teach about some demographics. To have an insight as to what is happening and to see the warnings completely ignored, I feel like Cassandra pointing at the wooden horse. The intelligent do not breed, the lower the IQ the more children people have, and all along, the Africans are refusing to obey the dictates of the Demographic Transition Model, which demands that they reduce their family size as their societies develop and they urbanise, and instead, they stubbornly continue to have 7 children per woman. The future is Sub Saharan African, with all that implies of sub 80 IQ.
Presumably our overlords can see this and somehow have convinced themselves that it is all marvellous and to be welcomed. I think they will regret it as they find that a low IQ, low impulse control population is less productive and less managable than they expect. But that will be cold comfort for the rest of us.
All our understanding of fertility is based on the Demographic Transistion Model which predicts that as nations urbanise and develop, that family size decreases. The theory works for European peoples, it works for North Asian populations but when it comes to Africans, the theory just fails. Africans just keep on having large families, regardless of changing economies, regardless of urbanisation, regardless of female education. The implications are very large and so obvious that everyone is ignoring them.
Interesting take on IQ. I might think we all are capable of decent intelligence given adequate nurture. I am much more concerned over the loss of people of western descent. White people as a group have genetics that some say stem from our earliest ancestors. Those genetics drive a certain creativity and risk taking that other societies/cultures don't engage in. Much of that has created a modern world that has improved life worldwide via advancements. Not to be a knock on anybody, but when you must spend hours hauling water for house activities you have little time to ponder the universe or invent much. Subsistence farming requires great effort and once societies and cultures can get beyond that 'progress' such as it is, is possible. A few quite consequential inventions enable nearly all we have today and those advancements were accomplished largely by a given set of people.
Should the vaccines destroy much of society, as long as some of the curious survive to re-invent, the world will recover.
The fact is that the higher a woman's IQ, the fewer children she has. That's not in dispute, it's been measured. And IQ is genetic. Nuture does not change it.
As for the world 'recovering'. Yes, eventually. But I don't think you realise quite how brutal and ghastly a Dark Age will be to live through. the knowledge that eventually, in hundreds of years time, that the world would recover would be a very cold comfort.
Interesting assertions. IQ and wealth are highly related and wealth alone is related to fewer children. A bit of paradox. The genetic basis for IQ is disputable, a lot is related to the attempt to quantify what we might call IQ. We do have extremely successful people from parents in dire poverty. That prospect is what created public libraries, should some wish to learn and prosper. I assess that greed is paramount to the richest who disdain children. IQ has noting to do with it except the clever become wealthier in general. My real wealth lies with my children. But money was never a real motivator for me or many others as a measure of worth. But I'm told my IQ is quite high, quite a lot more than my immediate parents. Among the millions of my ancestors (genetics) are likely some brilliant people and we all share those ancestors.
Who would wish a new dark age? But that is the essence of Cloward-Piven, destroy society in order to build a better one. The fact that it's a stupid idea seems to have little effect on our social reformers. The phrase "New Normal" along with "Build Back Better" are indicators of a future failure by zealots.
IQ is highly heritable, but there is a paradox. The children of highly intelligent people tend not to be as smart. Conversely, the children of dumb people are usually smarter. One generation of Masters of the Universe will not spawn the next. In this video I graphically present the thoughts of psychometrician James Flynn and polymath Steven Hsu as to why this is.
I am surprised. Observation and evidence overwhelmingly support the idea that IQ is hereditary, while all attempts to boost IQ by nuture have had limited and disappointing results.
It's called 'reversion to the mean'. Children of highly intelligent parents are more likely to be closer to the mean and as such, slightly less intelligent. And mirroring that, children of stupid parents are more likely to be closer to the mean and as such, slightly less stupid. However, stupid parents do not have intelligent children and intelligent parents do not have stupid children. Obviously, that is a normative statement, there are always a few rare exceptions but they are incredibly rare.
Reversion to the mean. Exactly. Galton, Spearman and even Gregor Mendel described it.
There are two senses of reversion to the mean. This is the first. Second is an artifact of multiple testing. If an individual scores abnormally high, odds are that it was a fluke that will be flushed out by retesting.
In the past, IQ and wealth were not highly related. Which was why poor people were frequently highly intelligent and that is why the development of widespread education and literacy allowed a bloom of creativity across Western civilisation. With the develop of a more meritocratic society, the high IQ people were able to rise, while low IQ people tended to sink. Now, the sorting has largely taken place, which is why there is a good correlation between wealth and IQ. Not a perfect correlation because, obviously, wealth is not the only motivating factor, not all high IQ people are obsessed with being rich but the great majority at least will avoid poverty.
Incidentially, it is not wealth that directly relates to having fewer children. It is educational attainment. the more educated a woman is, the fewer babies she has. It's a very well observed fact.
“And dammed if 80 pound Eddie didn't carry that 20 pound bag for a mile.”
Sweet, sweet victory. Go Eddie!!!
"When the supposedly smart countries have all died of their own catastrophically stupid policies, who will be left?" May I suggest Afghanistan?
Good guess. Afghanistan has shrugged off countless empires, from Sargon or Alexander up through Barack Obama, without changing appreciably.
I am really, really hoping that you are wrong about the vaccines. I hear a lot of people jusr casually announce that the vaccines will do all sorts of harm as if it were some sort of internet game or debate where if you are right you get to be smug. They don't seem to understand that if they are right, it will be appalling and it will directly and brutally effect them as their societies degenerate into chaos.
And, assuming that the vaccines don't have the terrible impacts that I fear and so many commentators (Mr Seibert excepted) seem to be self righteously hoping for, then we face a real demographic winter. I find this peculiarly fascinating as I actually teach about some demographics. To have an insight as to what is happening and to see the warnings completely ignored, I feel like Cassandra pointing at the wooden horse. The intelligent do not breed, the lower the IQ the more children people have, and all along, the Africans are refusing to obey the dictates of the Demographic Transition Model, which demands that they reduce their family size as their societies develop and they urbanise, and instead, they stubbornly continue to have 7 children per woman. The future is Sub Saharan African, with all that implies of sub 80 IQ.
Presumably our overlords can see this and somehow have convinced themselves that it is all marvellous and to be welcomed. I think they will regret it as they find that a low IQ, low impulse control population is less productive and less managable than they expect. But that will be cold comfort for the rest of us.
I'm halfway through reading "Tomorrow's People." Author is totally mainstream on climate, race, intelligence etc. but with you on African fertility.
All our understanding of fertility is based on the Demographic Transistion Model which predicts that as nations urbanise and develop, that family size decreases. The theory works for European peoples, it works for North Asian populations but when it comes to Africans, the theory just fails. Africans just keep on having large families, regardless of changing economies, regardless of urbanisation, regardless of female education. The implications are very large and so obvious that everyone is ignoring them.
Interesting take on IQ. I might think we all are capable of decent intelligence given adequate nurture. I am much more concerned over the loss of people of western descent. White people as a group have genetics that some say stem from our earliest ancestors. Those genetics drive a certain creativity and risk taking that other societies/cultures don't engage in. Much of that has created a modern world that has improved life worldwide via advancements. Not to be a knock on anybody, but when you must spend hours hauling water for house activities you have little time to ponder the universe or invent much. Subsistence farming requires great effort and once societies and cultures can get beyond that 'progress' such as it is, is possible. A few quite consequential inventions enable nearly all we have today and those advancements were accomplished largely by a given set of people.
Should the vaccines destroy much of society, as long as some of the curious survive to re-invent, the world will recover.
The fact is that the higher a woman's IQ, the fewer children she has. That's not in dispute, it's been measured. And IQ is genetic. Nuture does not change it.
As for the world 'recovering'. Yes, eventually. But I don't think you realise quite how brutal and ghastly a Dark Age will be to live through. the knowledge that eventually, in hundreds of years time, that the world would recover would be a very cold comfort.
Interesting assertions. IQ and wealth are highly related and wealth alone is related to fewer children. A bit of paradox. The genetic basis for IQ is disputable, a lot is related to the attempt to quantify what we might call IQ. We do have extremely successful people from parents in dire poverty. That prospect is what created public libraries, should some wish to learn and prosper. I assess that greed is paramount to the richest who disdain children. IQ has noting to do with it except the clever become wealthier in general. My real wealth lies with my children. But money was never a real motivator for me or many others as a measure of worth. But I'm told my IQ is quite high, quite a lot more than my immediate parents. Among the millions of my ancestors (genetics) are likely some brilliant people and we all share those ancestors.
Who would wish a new dark age? But that is the essence of Cloward-Piven, destroy society in order to build a better one. The fact that it's a stupid idea seems to have little effect on our social reformers. The phrase "New Normal" along with "Build Back Better" are indicators of a future failure by zealots.
IQ is highly heritable, but there is a paradox. The children of highly intelligent people tend not to be as smart. Conversely, the children of dumb people are usually smarter. One generation of Masters of the Universe will not spawn the next. In this video I graphically present the thoughts of psychometrician James Flynn and polymath Steven Hsu as to why this is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKrAbH_W-bQ&t=621s
Understand the notion of regression-mean, don't really accept that IQ has a strong genetic component.
I am surprised. Observation and evidence overwhelmingly support the idea that IQ is hereditary, while all attempts to boost IQ by nuture have had limited and disappointing results.
It's called 'reversion to the mean'. Children of highly intelligent parents are more likely to be closer to the mean and as such, slightly less intelligent. And mirroring that, children of stupid parents are more likely to be closer to the mean and as such, slightly less stupid. However, stupid parents do not have intelligent children and intelligent parents do not have stupid children. Obviously, that is a normative statement, there are always a few rare exceptions but they are incredibly rare.
Reversion to the mean. Exactly. Galton, Spearman and even Gregor Mendel described it.
There are two senses of reversion to the mean. This is the first. Second is an artifact of multiple testing. If an individual scores abnormally high, odds are that it was a fluke that will be flushed out by retesting.
In the past, IQ and wealth were not highly related. Which was why poor people were frequently highly intelligent and that is why the development of widespread education and literacy allowed a bloom of creativity across Western civilisation. With the develop of a more meritocratic society, the high IQ people were able to rise, while low IQ people tended to sink. Now, the sorting has largely taken place, which is why there is a good correlation between wealth and IQ. Not a perfect correlation because, obviously, wealth is not the only motivating factor, not all high IQ people are obsessed with being rich but the great majority at least will avoid poverty.
Incidentially, it is not wealth that directly relates to having fewer children. It is educational attainment. the more educated a woman is, the fewer babies she has. It's a very well observed fact.