Could we cure low intelligence? It seems to be the cause of

>>8293587
Yes. Proper diet, education, and removal of childhood trauma and in general negative social stimuli (achieved largely in part by combating poverty) has a profound and well documented effect on increasing average IQ scores.

>>8293608

I mean across the board. It's not enough to just prevent people from having a much lower level of intelligence than their genetic potential allows; I think we need to actually increase the potential level. It seems to be unacceptable that so many people are not capable of contributing in a meaningful way to solving all of our unsolved problems - especially if we are going to be automating much of the perfunctory and repetitive work in our economy within the next decade or two.

If we don't make these people (i.e. those currently in these soon-to-be automated positions) significantly smarter than they are at the moment, won't they just become permanent welfare recipients?

That seems like something we ought to try to avoid.

>>8293587
step 1) Fix society.
step 2) Genetically engineer better humans.
???
profit!

>>8293638
>step 2) Genetically engineer better humans.
wrong. You cannot define "better" and you'll never be able to.

>>8293638
>step 1) Fix society
But why?
Step 1: genetically engineer better humans
Step 2: fix society by force

>>8293645
"free of disease causing genetic conditions and engineered for greater longevity"

>>8293608
You're delusional. A study from The King's College London clearly indicates that genetics largely dominate a person's IQ. That is, if you have twins who grow up in very different surroundings, their IQ tend to be almost identical nevertheless.

You assume that poverty causes low IQ, but I'd wager instead that low IQ causes poverty.

>>8293662
My IQ is 89 and I got into Harvard

Plus I am white

>>8293658
>greater longevity
slime-humans sound good to you?

>"free of disease-causing genetic conditions
You cannot even define disease, but even if you could, what you're asking for is literally impossible.

>>8293662
I don't think richer people have a greater IQ.
But then, we couldn't stereotype every rich into one's single rule, some people are rich because they worked their brain for it. Some others got money because father and mother were already richfags

> proof : trump

File: HDS043.jpg (356KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 800x1200px

>>8293728
>I don't think richer people have a greater IQ.
It doesn't matter what you "think". Studies show that rich people have higher IQ on average than poor people. Of course not all rich people are smarter than all non-rich people.

>Some others got money because father and mother were already richfags
If your parents happen to be filthy rich, then there is a high probability that either one of them has high IQ. And because IQ is mostly genetical, you have a good probability of inheriting that high IQ from your parents.

> "proof : trump"
Trump is easily in the top 5% when it comes to intelligence. He wiped the floor with all the republican presidential candidates most of whom were experienced career politicians. He says a lot of stupid things, but only because he has calculated that it makes stupid people to vote for him. Perhaps you don't understand the brilliance of this master manipulator.

>>8293587
Brainletism is a terminal illness. The cure is assisted suicide. Sheldon was never interested in helping us, he only wants to laugh.

>>8293755

A few problems in that idea.

No matter the study you're ready to show me, better studies in psychology are showing the inaccuracy of IQ.

When IQ tests are showing words and asking which one doesn't fit in the group, or a mathematical problem, it is obvious that it doesn't show the intelligence to come up with an answer but what you education is showing about your understanding of your language/mathematical problem.
It's obvious that the son of a rich person which is already in a better school at 6 years old will perform better at logical problems (including mathematics, semantics, etc).
Therefore we can apply that IQ is form of cultural reproduction (if you don't understand that, get on Bourdieu), IQ doesn't reveal intelligence, it supposes it based on logical answers, not to mention that logic isn't supposed to be the sole purpose of a brain, emotional intelligence and other faculties are well-know of neurosciences.

Psychology have yet centuries to come with a certain answer on the unbiased calculation of intelligence.

Finally don't talk about a descriptive correlation as if it was a experiment that proves causality. I could show you that people who eat bananas are far better thinker and you will infer this relation to every monkey.

btw my proof was a joke, I didn't think someone on /sci/ could be b8't about it and I didn't mean to trigger you, but if we should talk facts I don't think he's as intelligent as he pretends. I've read today that he's 3x more in debt than he admitted to be. But let's not make it a trump thread. Let's keep it /sci/

Plus get off that stupid photo of my face.

>>8293587
>It seems to be the cause of a lot of our societal and economic problems; so shouldn't it be one of our primary scientific goals

Wat. The problem is not lack of intelligence but rather lack of empathy.

File: HDS073.jpg (315KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 800x1200px

>>8293779
>No matter the study you're ready to show me, better studies in psychology are showing the inaccuracy of IQ.
When psychologists say that IQ is inaccurate, they are talking about the inaccuracy of predicting the behavior of an individual. I'm talking about masses and statistics, where it is proven to be very accurate. Richard Lynn has written several books of this subject, you should check them out.

>When IQ tests are showing words and asking which one doesn't fit in the group, or a mathematical problem, it is obvious that it doesn't show the intelligence to come up with an answer but what you education is showing about your understanding of your language/mathematical problem.
>It's obvious that the son of a rich person which is already in a better school at 6 years old will perform better at logical problems (including mathematics, semantics, etc).
>Therefore we can apply that IQ is form of cultural reproduction (if you don't understand that, get on Bourdieu)
Let's just clarify that when I'm talking about IQ, I'm strictly talking about the ability to solve the classic pattern recognition problems such as Raven's matrices. They are culturally independent and your language/math knowledge doesn't dictate how well you perform in them.

>Finally don't talk about a descriptive correlation as if it was a experiment that proves causality.
If you think that I talked about causality in this discussion, you don't even know what the term means.

>>8293816

> When psychologists say that IQ is inaccurate, they are talking about the inaccuracy of predicting the behavior of an individual.

No. They are talking about the inability of making a proper measure of the human intelligence, nothing about predicting behavior.

> I'm talking about masses and statistics, where it is proven to be very accurate.
I didn't see that.

>Let's just clarify that when I'm talking about IQ, I'm strictly talking about the ability to solve the classic pattern recognition problems such as Raven's matrices.
IQ is more than that. But I do agree that Raven's matrices are less culturally biased than the others questions, unless you don't understand the point of of the exercice, which can happen, you have not possible way of being out of the loop on this kind of exercice.
We agree on these, then. But again IQ tests are more than that.

> If you think that I talked about causality in this discussion, you don't even know what the term means.
You are implying that rich people are smarter because they're rich, therefore their sons are more likely to be as intelligent. This is cause and effect relation. To put it in another way, you are suggesting something that the statistics are not showing, and that is wrong since it's nothing but a correlation which meant to be descriptive. You mentioned stats earlier, so you must know the risk of that logical fallacy you're doing.

File: dxfWK.jpg (36KB, 500x325px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x325px

>>8293840
sorry, forgot pic
Let's name it "Causality =/= Correlation"

>>8293662

I hope you realize that the quotient of heritability is not an absolute statistic, but rather a population-dependent statistic. That is to say, if an experiment finds h to have a value of, say, .8, then that doesn't mean intelligence inherently has a heritability of .8, but rather that it has a heritability of .8 in that population. So in a population where poor people do drugs while pregnant, have a shitty understanding of nutrition, and are riddled with parasites, there will be a significant difference in intelligence due to environment. This isn't really the case in the first world, but it is in much poorer countries, so I would want to take a look at your study, because if it was conducted in a society with less extreme conditions of poverty then I would argue that it does not tell the whole story.

File: 1463330643415.jpg (115KB, 650x975px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 650x975px

>>8293840
No, you still don't understand what I'm saying. Let me put this into very simple format.

>Argument #1:
>On average, rich people are more intelligent than non-rich people.
Let's say we divide people into two sets, rich (richer than average) and poor (poorer than average). If you pick a random person A from rich set and random person B from poor set, the probability for A being smarter than B is more than 1/2. (Remember that we are working with the normal distribution here.)

>Argument #2:
>IQ is highly genetic.
This means that if parents are smart, their offspring has higher probability of being smart.

>Combining argument #1 and #2:
Now pick 2 persons A, B from rich set and 2 persons C, D from poor set. A and B get child X and C and D get child Y. The probability for X being smarter than Y is more than 1/2.

>>8293876
I did understand you.

How can I say it another way to make you understand ?
Being rich doesn't make the probability of having a better IQ greater. Being rich is the cause of several advantages that ultimately leads to better scores on IQ tests.

Add this rational answer from a kind anon to the mix >>8293850

Understand that two those variables aren't predicting that you have more intelligence in rich people, and you might understand where your logic is wrong. Plus let's not forget contextual advantages of being rich (as having more time to express your abilities in something you appreciate, as having greater products and a better quality of life)
And you see that IQ tests are biased, therefore making the statistics biased, and ultimately your logic biased.

Please read a sum up on Bourdieu's work on cultural reproduction to understand the vicious cycle, it's not the same thing but it's a similar analogy to what I'm referring to.

I love the low IQ brainfucked retarded posts in this thread

>hurr you can't even define better
>hurrr you can't even say what a disease is

How the fuck do you come into a board marked science and post this retarded fucking filth you stupid apefuck.

Go back and read the definition of science.

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

UN FUCK YOURSELF BRAINLETS

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

>>8293779
idiot

>>8293779
I will address your post, quotations from you in greentext.

>low IQ monkey speak
There are a multitude of IQ tests and correlated tests which all match up perfectly. IQ is not culture.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-east-asian-exception-to-socio-economic-iq-influences/
http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/2/2/53.extract
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/2590/

>IQ is cultural reproduction
fucking kill yourself

Also your use of IQ while arguing is pretty telling because actual intellectuals on the subject refer to it as G.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/brain-fingerprint-sorting-hat-intelligence/
http://www.wired.com/2015/10/scientists-can-now-predict-intelligence-brain-activity/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3751588/

Your points and similar points are basically pure shit. You are a fucking idiot and fuck off discussing this subject you retarded fuckstain.

>>8293891
>Bourdieu's work on cultural reproduction

top kek

You seem to be around 105 IQ, had a tough time with mathematics, and are very liberal. Probably also a good ego on you and think by quoting low IQ marxist hacks you are advanced.

The entire post-modernist french intellectual crowd has been pretty much disproved in every possible way. Their theories are pure shit and only seem plausible in a self-contained bubble apart from any actual observable research.

Here is a nice chomsky bit on "french intellectuals"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cqTE_bPh7M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjQA0e0UYzI

>>8294243

top kek

you seem to have iq of 7. You have hard with reads and are politics.

The politics is a world of splendid pallor shades. They don't idea much thusly and bubble strengthwise quickly. Much wrong.

File: img_graph.png (21KB, 860x330px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 860x330px

>>8294280
Your program sucks. You had to type the first 2 lines manually.

>>8293587
>Could we cure low intelligence?

Yes. Castrate anyone who posts on /pol/.

>>8293662
>You're delusional.

>>>/pol/

>A study from The King's College London

[citation needed]

>>8294280
>You have hard with reads and are politics.

What did he mean by this?

>>8294349
>hes thinks everyone on /pol/ has low intelligence

Thats a very primitive tribalistic savage idea you got right there looks like stupid people have no self awareness.

Proper nutrition (Iodine and iron especially). Removal of lead from homes. Poverty is a correlation not a causation. Impoverished people tend live in leaded areas which have extremely negative effects on iq.

>>8294747
>primitive tribalistic savage idea
holy adjectives

>>8293668
4real?

File: 2016-08-24-Science _ Definition of Science by Merriam-Webster.png (15KB, 808x259px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 808x259px

>>8294217

>>8293587
> world is doomed because stupids
> totally not greed
Pro-tip: it's greed not intellect
t. Autist

reminder that high intelligence has been linked to mental illness. if anything we should cure high intelligence.

I'm pretty dumb, my cognitive skills are ass and it's for me to really focus. Is there any hope for the dumb, or should I just try harder in learning things? help me guys, I wouldn't want to off myself if there is hope

People who appear "smart" are usually just free of delusion and have learned to be critical of their own ideas and their own logical prowess. They are also in the habit of reflecting about things internally and are in good habits of thinking critically about things they encounter even when not obligated to.

People who appear "dumb" don't do all these things. They view internal reflection as a chore and just want to "relax", they lose control of their emotions when anyone challenges an idea that they care about, and they are only ever critical of things at their place of work or when having a conversation with someone they dislike, e.g. their critical filter is just emotion based (if you like that person, you nod and smile, if you don't like them you find a reason to disagree, if you want it to be true then you believe it, if you don't want it to be true then you don't). All manner of critical thinking, reflection and self evaluation is viewed as a laborious and frequently painful process which must be avoided whenever possible. Anyone who tries to force you to do any of these things is viewed as an annoyance, buzz kill, attacker or whatever and avoided in the future if possible.

The solution to ignorance or dumb people is not to give birth to smarter babies, it's to teach people to embrace critical thinking in the classroom, which just isn't happening in the US. Do that and you'll find that there are suddenly a lot less "dumb" people around.

>>8295380
http://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/biomedical/bionics/new-startup-aims-to-commercialize-a-brain-prosthetic-to-improve-memory

>>8295380
you could start with eating right meditating sleeping more excercise. you know the classic 'i have mental issues' advice, but after that it is up to specifics

>>8293587
Removing women from scores
Killing niggers
Gassing poor people and retards
Eating vegetables and getting your b12.

>>8293587
>cure low intelligence
>implying low intelligence is a disease
>implying low intelligence is not the norm
>implying low intelligence is not a survival trait
implying you don't know WTF you're
talkin'about, boy

Sure we can. Just start executing the stupid.

If you somehow raise the intelligence there will still be a bottom 10%, so you'll need to raise it again, then you're stuck in a loop of raising intelligence for no reason than to satisfy some autistic urge

America is too anti-intellectual and anti-authority to do anything. It's the land where you're told you can believe in anything you want, and you're right if you can find anyone to justify you. On the right there is climate change denial, evolution denial, human genetics denial, while on the left there's antivaxers, vegans, anti-GMO et cetera. Everyone in american has special snowflake syndrome where they think that they can believe whatever their feelings tell them.

There's also the fact that parents are getting worse and worse, and parents are the primary responsible party for a child's education outcomes.

There's also a reason that college football is more popular than college, and that the Olympic athletes are far more popular than mathletes.

>>8293850
This is why you pick a group representative of the global or national population.

File: Dr-Walter-Bishop-in-1x01-Pilot-walter-bishop-20170585-1360-768.jpg (97KB, 1360x768px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1360x768px

Thought patterns can be learned. Anyone can become a person who is conscious of their own mind and aware of their own flaws, and use their brain to their best of their ability and fly through school and their careers. Plenty of people do. The problem lies in those who don't know how to fix their own mental issues.

Improve mental health care and you will have less stupid people and less crime.

>>8295452
Once wrong with vegans? Not a vegan but that one stood out amongst all those other crackpot labels

>>8295451
If we teach people things at school there will still be a bottom 10% in knowledge so we will need to teach more. Then it will just be an autistic loop.

Think about why it's still beneficial to teach people things.

>>8295631
>My diet is more healthy than everyone else's! Humans are herbivores, not omnivores!

>even though I need to take all these vitamin suppliments

>>8295631
The fuck you aren't a vegan. No non vegan would "Um excuse me?" to someone talking shit about vegans.

>>8293587
genetic cleansing is not permitted

>>8295383
Very valid points made.