Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion The Case for Having More Kids (NYT)

Val - Thanks so much for standing up and crying foul of folks twisting and inflaming. I'm not sure there is room on this Forum for these sorts of discussions, but I am sure that there isn't room for imflaming people's comments.

I enjoyed looking up Godwin's Law. But I do have to say that as much as I love, and owe to IQ tests, their history is wrapped up in American Eugenics Movement and very ugly. I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I like this book War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. New York: Basic Books, 2003.
for more details, although I can't say I got more than half way through it. Life is complicated.

Maybe we should start "Greatest Contentious Topics Thread" and all the folks who want to whine and flame can post there?

Love and More Love,
Grinity

So... in our over-populated world, what should the target population be... and who gets to decide that figure? And who gets to enforce that figure? And as long as we are mandating a reduction, how is it any more or less evil to dictate which segments of the population need greater reductions?

Since I'm not a fan of gov't control over much of anything -- let alone population control -- I think we've got to have a little more faith in the individual. And if some populations haven't figured out that the dozen-kids-per-household isn't the best strategy, well, I suppose they'll figure it out at some point.

On the other hand, while (and because) I'm not going to bounce around the globe extolling the virtues of my own personal vision of nirvana vis-a-vis population control, I see nothing wrong with sharing with some choice local friends and relatives the idea that a few more comparatively smarter babies in this world isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Is it just me, or am I the only one that has considered that the world doesn't exactly seem to know what to do with the "smart" people that it currently has? Maybe having more of them (relatively speaking) isn't going to help very much if they're still being NCLB-ed to death in schools anyway...



<mumbling> It might just be me. Nevermind then...

Indeed.

So we should have more smart kids...

and then...


uh...



dumb them into submission with electronic mind control?? JK. But it did strike me as kind of funny.

If what I wrote seemed inflammatory or whiny, I apologize. That was not my intention. I've had this discussion with good friends, who I love and respect, and who disagree with me completely. Nonetheless, my opinion is my opinion.

If you accept the Bell Curve argument that intelligence is largely inherited and that smart kids will usually do well unless the environment is awful, it is less necessary to shell out money for private schools and universities. Going to the local public school and the state university will not ruin your child's chance of success.

I have three kids and am sending them to neighborhood public schools, even though I could afford private ones, because I don't think it would make a big difference to their futures.

Caplan is saying that a moderate amount of TV watching, which does give a parent time to rest, will not permanently impair a child's intellect. I think that is true.

My earlier statement that "it is especially important for smart people to have lots of children" can be fairly labeled as a eugenic argument, and I do not think eugenic measures are always bad. Prohibition of cousin marriage in many states of the U.S. is an example of an uncontroversial eugenic measure, at least here. In some countries cousin marriage is common and leads to reduced IQ and other birth defects.

In general, people act to maximize the chance of positive outcomes. Positive outcomes such as being self-supporting and staying out jail are more likely when the average IQ of the parents is 130 than 70. The same argument could be made for any heritable trait. I think it's reasonable to say that beautiful people should have more children, because they are more likely to have beautiful children. (I am aware that beauty is subjective, but I bet that if a 100 children of movie stars were compared with 100 children from the general public, the former group would be rated better-looking.)

It's a good reproductive strategy for them if someone else is paying the bills.

I support a minimal state where only a small fraction of the earnings of the most productive and intelligent people are taxed away to support the children of others. Then the more intelligent will have more money to spend on their own children -- either spending more per child, having more children, or both.

Sort of, but not really. The world has a reasonably easy time dealing with smart people in general. The problematic ones are the ones who are highly gifted and beyond (think about the term optimally gifted and you'll understand what I mean).