Mixed Eugenics?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,944
SoCal
#31
Thats correct. Reunification programs have their own intake quotas, and it is not unusual to see family members waiting 10 - 12 years to immigrate to the US.
Do you know what these quotas are?

And yes the whole immigration debate is a highly charged one. Personally regardless of merits I think the most important quality we need to look at is a desire to embrace the culture they are entering.
Agreed. I do think that we should select for immigrants who are willing and able to assimilate (and that certainly includes not engaging in crime, et cetera). I still maintain, though, that immigration policy should be geared towards not lowering a country's average IQ too much--since, as I said, this could perhaps create a lot of strain on a country's social safety net.
 
Mar 2019
1,452
Kansas
#32
Do you know what these quotas are?
It is complicated. Currently the US quota is about 750,000 visas per year, then the reunification programs are a percentage of that. Wikipedia suggests is about 75% - that in turn is broken down by category of need - Children under 18, children over 18 so on and so forth.

And unlike what some media outlets might try to tell you. The US is one of the toughest countries in the world to immigrate to. Virtually no one gets accepted simply because they want to move here.
 
Dec 2011
1,332
Belgium
#33
Also, Yes, the US still has a lot of room for its population to grow. Of course, the immigration restrictionists' argument might be that just like the Ivy League only select the smartest people (of each race, at least), so the US should only select the smartest immigrants. Personally, I think that this is being too restrictive. Personally, I would favor an immigration policy with a more merit-based focus but that also allowed some lower-IQ people to come here just as long as they didn't subsequently cause trouble here. I do think that it would be a good thing for an immigration policy not to lower a country's average IQ too much, though. After all, there is a risk that this could cause strain on a country's social safety net due to a higher percentage of people possibly needing to be subsidized. So, yeah, focus on merit-based immigration but also be compassionate and allow some low-IQ immigrants in who are unlikely to cause any trouble--just as long as one doesn't admit too many of them at once, of course. BTW, I'm not convinced that letting in too many smart immigrants at once is a good idea either (due to the risk of increased job/employment competition for natives)--though it does appear to be working out OK for Canada and Australia (in regards to Australia, other than perhaps for its environment).
Futurist,

"select the smartest people (of each race, at least), so the US should only select the smartest immigrants"

Futurist, as everybody here speaks about race, it is perhaps interesting to define what "race" is?
An interesting article from the Brittanica gives a survey of the many misinterpretations of "race" and is nearly a survey of what I found about the subject over the last 17 years.
Race | human

And the misinterpretations of IQ are also mentioned in this article.
BTW; What is "smart" in relation with "IQ"?

Kind regards, Paul.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,944
SoCal
#34
Futurist,

"select the smartest people (of each race, at least), so the US should only select the smartest immigrants"

Futurist, as everybody here speaks about race, it is perhaps interesting to define what "race" is?
An interesting article from the Brittanica gives a survey of the many misinterpretations of "race" and is nearly a survey of what I found about the subject over the last 17 years.
Race | human

And the misinterpretations of IQ are also mentioned in this article.
BTW; What is "smart" in relation with "IQ"?

Kind regards, Paul.
Race is best defined as meaning ancestry/population. For instance, no one takes Rachel Dolezal's claim to be black seriously because by ancestry, she simply isn't black/African.

As for IQ, are you suggesting that IQ tests themselves are worthless and/or biased or merely that the environment brings down average IQ? Because the US Supreme Court recognized the value of IQ by forbidding the execution of anyone with an IQ below 70. As for the claim that IQ tests are biased, you really wouldn't want blacks and Hispanics who have been convinced of serious crimes to get their IQs adjusted upwards so that they would become eligible for the death penalty, would you? I mean, some people here in the US actually did make an argument along these lines. Seriously.
 
Oct 2013
14,438
Europix
#36
As for IQ, are you suggesting that IQ tests themselves are worthless and/or biased or merely that the environment brings down average IQ?
Paul didn't suggested the IQ tests themselves are worthless, but pointed the misinterpretations of IQ tests.

Two totally different things.

* * *

As for IQ tests being biased, yes they are and they will always be, whatever the supreme Court had decided or no. It's a test elaborated by someone that has a certain culture, a certain opinion in what intelligence is. Thus, biased (even against the strongest and honest objectivation will).

It's enough to just look at the definition of "intelligence". If You find just one, endorsed by everybody, You can talk about unbiased, objective IQ test.

So, is it only one, that definition?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,944
SoCal
#37
Paul didn't suggested the IQ tests themselves are worthless, but pointed the misinterpretations of IQ tests.

Two totally different things.
OK--how are IQ tests being misinterpreted?

* * *

As for IQ tests being biased, yes they are and they will always be, whatever the supreme Court had decided or no. It's a test elaborated by someone that has a certain culture, a certain opinion in what intelligence is. Thus, biased (even against the strongest and honest objectivation will).

It's enough to just look at the definition of "intelligence". If You find just one, endorsed by everybody, You can talk about unbiased, objective IQ test.

So, is it only one, that definition?
Sure, someone who has to live in the jungles of Papua New Guinea or in the deserts of Australia might have to rely on different traits and abilities than someone who has to live in a modern, industrial society. However, as the world is becoming more and more industrialized, modern industrialized society appears to be gradually becoming the only game in town.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,944
SoCal
#38
Also, DT, I think that we might be going a bit off-tangent here. Anyway, if one views some other trait(s) as being more important than intelligence, then one could encourage the people (of all races) who have this trait to largely reproduce with each other and to consistently have much more children than the rest of the population has. This is how evolution works. If a certain group of humans reproduces much more than everyone else does for a sufficiently long time period, then the entire human population (on average) gradually begins looking more and more like this group of humans.
 
Dec 2011
1,332
Belgium
#39
BTW, Richard Haier's recent book about intelligence might be of interest to anyone who wants to learn more about this topic:

The Neuroscience of Intelligence

Also, Stuart Ritchie's recent book about intelligence doesn't appear to be too bad either:

Intelligence: All That Matters
Futurist,

I had a look to the two books that you provided and yes when I spoke about misinterpretations of IQ tests I meant the following that I found in the Britannica
Race - The decline of “race” in science

"In the 1890s the psychologist Alfred Binet began testing the mental abilities of French schoolchildren to ascertain how children learned and to help those who had trouble learning. Binet did not call his test an intelligence test, and its purpose was not to divide French schoolchildren into hierarchical groups. But with these tests a new mechanism was born that would provide powerful support to those who held beliefs in racial differences in intelligence.


Psychologists in the United States very quickly adopted Binet’s tests and modified them for American use. More than that, they reinterpreted the results to be clear evidence of innate intelligence. Lewis Terman and his colleagues at Stanford University developed the Stanford-Binet IQ (intelligence quotient) test, which set the standard for similar tests produced by other American psychologists.


IQ tests began to be administered in large numbers during the second decade of the 20th century. The influences of hereditarian beliefs and the power of the racial worldview had conditioned Americans to believe that intelligence was inherited and permanent and that no external influences could affect it. Indeed, heredity was thought to determine a person’s or a people’s place in life and success or failure. Americans came to employ IQ tests more than any other nation. A major reason for this was that the tests tended to confirm the expectations of white Americans; on average, blacks did less well than whites on IQ tests. But the tests also revealed that the disadvantaged people of all races do worse on IQ tests than do the privileged. Such findings were compatible with the beliefs of large numbers of Americans who had come to accept unqualified biological determinism.


Opponents of IQ tests and their interpretations argued that intelligence had not been clearly defined, that experts did not agree on its definition, and that there were many different types of intelligence that cannot be measured. They also called attention to the many discrepancies and contradictions of the tests. One of the first examples of empirical evidence against the “innate intelligence” arguments was the revelation by psychologist Otto Klineberg in the 1930s that blacks in four northern states did better on average than whites in the four southern states where expenditures on education were lowest. Klineberg’s analysis pointed to a direct correlation between income and social class and performance on IQ tests. Further evidence indicated that students with the best primary education and greater cultural experiences always did better on such tests. Experts thus argued that such tests are culture-bound; that is, they reflect and measure the cultural experiences and knowledge of those who take the tests and their levels of education and training. Few would deny that African Americans and Native Americans have long had a much more restricted experience of American culture and a far inferior education."

And your two books:
Richard J. Haier - Wikipedia
Richard Haier
Intelligence: All That Matters

Futurist, I don't deny the worth of these studies, certainly not. And the high percent of genetical influence on the human body...and brain. The latest consensus among scientists in the nurture versus nature debate seems to be fifty/fyfty...
And I don't deny that in the last 70 years there is a lot of progress in the research of human intelligence, but perhaps the same flaws remain....will the rather sophisticated interviews for a job be take place in "scientific lab" conditions"? Will large population checks, where the tests will become routine, be as reliable as in "lab tests" where for instance the mentioning of your "race" connotation, will be put into account on its right value...perhaps in the future a robot controller working with algorithms to decide?
The Police Are Using Computer Algorithms to Tell if You’re a Threat

And yes, when you have determined, what intelligence is due to your intelligent anchestors and what to the environment in which you are grown up and have to correct that "environment" to boost more intelligence if it isn't too late, you have perhaps still people, who have different types of intelligence as aptitudes for maths or humans, who have an intelligent interpersonal aptitude
9 Types Of Intelligence - Infographic

Futurist, as I have to go away for some days I have first no time to read your books and btw, as I see in what direction the debate goes, I prefer to abstain and as I learned from the English on the ex-BBC history messageboard (2002-2012) to say: I agree that we have to disagree...
An I let the readers of this thread judge each on their own, how they will interpret our discussion...

Kind regards, Paul.
 
Likes: Futurist

Similar History Discussions