Philosoft

Trebax, pursuant to beausoleil's point, you start with the incorrect assumptions that "intellect" is a self-contained thing that 1)can be selected for in isolation; 2)includes all the components of intelligence that apply to the various disciplines. Please show that what you claim is even possible, using any contemporary psychological source you can dredge up.

Your dubious use of archaic English cannot hide the fact that you need to go to college before you speak further on this.

beausoleil

What made them produce the work you call brilliant, and what made them, in your word, 'defective' , are not necessarily distinct. For instance, the combination of great intelligence with the energy of mania has been postulated to explain why so many bipolar people have made such massive contributions. On the other hand, the intelligence and the 'defect' may be two sides of the same coin.

Ironically, I think your policy would weed out some of the most desirable traits you'd be trying to select. I'm afraid we don't know nearly enough to pick winners.

I posted some other thoughts on the dyusgenics thread.

Totalitarianist

Remember that the only intelligences of any value are the logical-mathematical, spatial, and linguistical ones. It has been observed by psychologists that there is a very close parallel between all such intelligences in men; that is to say, those gifted in the mathematics are almost invariably above average linguistically. We cannot forget moreover that the spatial and mathematical intelligences often overlap. And it is the people gifted in these faculties that are naturally more interested in universities, and are therefore more likely to be found in one. If we encourage, or perhaps even force, the proliferation of those in universities by permitting them to have many wives in accordance with the desirable traits they tend to exhibit, and discourage, or perhaps even force, the proliferation of the inverted classes of people, given the obvious genetic factor in relation to intelligence, the proposed scenerio is exceedingly realistic; that is to say, the execution of the desired end is probable by such means.

Psychologists scarcely ever write about eugenics. They do, however, often speak of intelligence and studies with identical twins, adopted children, &c.

And some ad hominem to finish off the already poorly constructed argument. Although this quite manifestly influences my argument not in the slightest, I will, nevertheless, respond to it.

First, in response to "Your dubious use of archaic English", I ask for examples; that is to say, quotations of the contents of any of my various messages wherein it is manifest that I speak like such.

Second, my knowledge of this subject is sufficient. Even if wherein it is insufficient and relates to whatever topic I am discussing, I can always consult with any of my countless college texts. Or if you mean not my knowledge in the present subject, but the generality of my knowledge (which makes your assertion irrelevant), unless I mistake not, simply telling you what I have read within the past week will satisfactorily refute that. I am going to post a new subject that relates to this specifically in a new thread.

Totalitarianist

All good points, my friend. And honestly I do appreciate such points. But let us first consider this: the symptoms of feeblemindedness and most of the mental defects that I speak of are not treatable. The symptons of the defect of manic-depressing, on the second hand, can be treated with mood stabilisers. (Though I nevertheless maintain that the proliferation ought to be decreased, even for bipolar people, since the money required for such treatments of symptoms is excessive.)

Namely? I am not interested in a website by a mentally defective person who collects a bunch of the names of so-called "manic depressive people" in an attempt to make him feel less inferior. The insane often to this. The blind often try to look for famous blind people for inspiration, and yet we do not desire more blind people, even if their talents were increased by their inability to see.

And rememember that these or only unverifiable guesses. Has a famous psychologist of this time ever communicated with Newton, and analysed him to confirm his allaged manic-depresson? I think otherwise.

Philosoft

Okay, Vir. Once again from the top.

Cognition can be broken down into different disciplines, no doubt. But you fail to realize that the disciplines of cognition form a complex, interconnected whole. What you now need to show is that the disciplines you have decided are most desirable are independently selectable. You need to show that your preferred disciplines do not covary with artifacts and 'defects' you are trying to eliminate.

I'll not bother to follow this up if you again choose to avoid answering the questions.

Jayjay

Embodiment of etc.: So we are not supposed to make an ethical statement that eugenics is bad, whereas you can happily post several paragraphs of drivel about how eugenics is good. What is that if not an ethical statement, i.e. saying that something is "good" or "bad" for the society?

(I have not read the whole thread yet, so I apologize to anyone who made the same observation before me.)

AtomSmasher

I believe Embodiment of the Absolute Idea eliminated ethics and morality from the start to facilitate an objective discussion on eugenics. Morality may be in an important consideration but if you are trying to discuss the practicality of a topic such as eugenics, abortion, stem cell research, cloning, etc. and not the morality then it should be discussed separately. Perhaps you could start another thread about the ethics of eugenics.

beausoleil

That they are inferior is the point in question. In this part of your argument you are using both circular reasoning and an ad hominem - your argument that some people are mentally defective is challenged by someone, you reply that the opponent's source is mentally defective (relying on the argument you are trying to prove).

As for your second point, the list, some are still living and diagnosed. Some are dead, but reported symptoms very similar to those that would today be characterised as typical of bipolar disorder, Churchill, for instance, was capable of incredible bouts of energy but often complained of being visitied by his 'black dog' depression. I would hazard that, whatever the specific diagnosis, most of these people had symptoms you would characterise as signifying some mental defect that should be selected against.

I can recommend a book covering the evidence for the mental state of many of the people mentioned, if you're interested.

You still haven't demonstrated that one can seperately select for intelligence. Given that this thread was confined (by you) to the practicality of eugenics, perhaps you'd care to address the issue. So far, all you've done is assert that it's possible.

Jayjay

Ah, but he did not eliminate ethics and morality from the discourse, quite the contrary his posts are filled with promotion of his particular brand of Marxism and subservience to the state. This is further evident by the fact that mr. Embodiment of the Absolute Idea avoids actually defending the scientific aspect of the question, but takes it for granted that the science supports him (even if it doesn't). So, what EotAI really did was just a childish attempt at shielding his ideology from ethicical/political criticism.

As for the practical side of the issue, I don't see what's stopping the eugenics advocates from moving to a deserted island or something to do their little social experiments, thus proving themselves right. Or better yet, undergo a sterilization process if they feel their genes aren't good enough. Eugenics, like communism, has been around for more than a century now, yet it has never yielded any visible results in terms of increasing intelligence, whereas investments in education have verifiably increased the average IQ in the industrialized nations.

One of the last sane

Seems to me that the mentally handicapped and the physically handicapped cause far less grief to society than the morally handicapped. However, I am not aware of any good evidence that sociopathy or delinquency are heritable. I believe current evidence points to them both being principally caused by postnatal experiences.
What about narcissism, is it heritable?