assumes smart people breed smart kids and stupid people breed stupid kids
From a “nature + nurture” point of view in a primitive world, it can be argued that people who strike the combo, are “more likely” to both pass on their own genetic predisposition, and be “more prepared” to raise their kids up to a similar standard.
In a modern world though, I’d still rather have professional teachers take care of the nurture part, and shut up about nature at least until someone can unequivocally point to the “smartness genes”… at which point I’d ask for a GMO cat with a 200 IQ, yay!
Arguably… kind of, but never with a single number.
From a multidimensional intersectional hypothesis of intelligence point of view, the “IQ” should be a series of several hundred measurements; a single number is meaningless. Even then, we still lack a bottom-up theory of intelligence, so all tests are just sociological comparisons as related to a population at a given moment in time.
There are indications that some “basic capability for developing problem solving skills” may exist, but we’re nowhere close to even defining it, much less measuring it.
Somewhat ironically, as we’ve developed AI systems… the only way to train them, has been to use neural networks and a “spray and pray” approach with extra steps, making them into 99% black boxes… so now we can “reproduce some behaviors associated with intelligence”, without being that much closer to understanding it 😆
Why?
Dingledorf assumes smart people breed smart kids and stupid people breed stupid kids?
Title of article should be “Stupid Person makes Stupid Assumptions”
More like “known nazi repeats ancient nazi talking points about eugenics”
“Low IQ Person Requests Sterilisation”
From a “nature + nurture” point of view in a primitive world, it can be argued that people who strike the combo, are “more likely” to both pass on their own genetic predisposition, and be “more prepared” to raise their kids up to a similar standard.
In a modern world though, I’d still rather have professional teachers take care of the nurture part, and shut up about nature at least until someone can unequivocally point to the “smartness genes”… at which point I’d ask for a GMO cat with a 200 IQ, yay!
Further, assuming intelligence is measurable by an IQ test.
Arguably… kind of, but never with a single number.
From a multidimensional intersectional hypothesis of intelligence point of view, the “IQ” should be a series of several hundred measurements; a single number is meaningless. Even then, we still lack a bottom-up theory of intelligence, so all tests are just sociological comparisons as related to a population at a given moment in time.
There are indications that some “basic capability for developing problem solving skills” may exist, but we’re nowhere close to even defining it, much less measuring it.
Somewhat ironically, as we’ve developed AI systems… the only way to train them, has been to use neural networks and a “spray and pray” approach with extra steps, making them into 99% black boxes… so now we can “reproduce some behaviors associated with intelligence”, without being that much closer to understanding it 😆