Notices
Results 1 to 71 of 71

Thread: Stupid poor people

  1. #1 Stupid poor people 
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    I'm not implying causation, or correlation for that matter... no, it's more like frustration



    But are all poor people relatively stupid?


    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Besides the obvious connection between nutrition and mental ability, you should review Maslow.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior newnothing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    226
    I think the social environment surrounding poor people affects their intelligence.
    ~ One’s ultimate perfection depends on the development of all the members of society ~ Kabbalah
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by newnothing
    I think the social environment surrounding poor people affects their intelligence.
    I think the intelligence of poor people affects their social environment.

    I think the poverty of stupid people affects their social environment.

    I think it doesn't matter what I think, but what the evidence demonstrates.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    My question doesn't make sense

    Relative to what? Average intelligence

    and of course not ALL poor people are relatively stupid, but poor people as a whole, are they stupider than wealthier people as a whole?

    I'm not asking what causes poor people to tend to have lesser intelligence, but am asking whether it is true they do.

    I suppose I should just look it up for myself.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    My question doesn't make sense

    Relative to what? Average intelligence

    and of course not ALL poor people are relatively stupid, but poor people as a whole, are they stupider than wealthier people as a whole?

    I'm not asking what causes poor people to tend to have lesser intelligence, but am asking whether it is true they do.

    I suppose I should just look it up for myself.
    In terms of IQ test or such I don't know, but in terms of educational success definitely. Poor people are much less likely to finish high school. I was just looking at the success rates of private schools in Montreal, of course their graduation rate is 99-98% almost exclusively. The worst public schools are lucky to break 50%, most of the people I went to high school with ended up pregnant or on drugs.

    My personal anecdotal experience has been that as I progress in life I don't meet less stupid people, but I meet less stupid people with poor backgrounds like my own. So, if you're going to be born stupid cross your fingers and hope to be rich.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    People with low mental ability will have trouble acquiring the training to get a good job, or if they get a job, they will have a good chance of doing poorly at it, and will be fired; hence they will have a low income. Isn't that blindingly obvious?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    People with low mental ability will have trouble acquiring the training to get a good job, or if they get a job, they will have a good chance of doing poorly at it, and will be fired; hence they will have a low income. Isn't that blindingly obvious?
    Not to us poor people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    People with low mental ability will have trouble acquiring the training to get a good job, or if they get a job, they will have a good chance of doing poorly at it, and will be fired; hence they will have a low income. Isn't that blindingly obvious?
    Not to us poor people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    isn't there a saying that goes something like "a fool and his money are soon parted" ?
    could it be that many poor people not only don't earn much money, but can't handle money when they do ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    I think most of it comes from nutrition deficiency, and cultural peculiarities.

    Cultural peculiarities like folk traditions that value homelessness, vagrancy and common sense vs possessions, aspirations and education.

    And nutrition deficiencies caused due to the lack of nutritious food, not as a direct result of being poor, but of being interested in things other than health. Health is not important to most poor people. For many of those that talk as though it's important, don't act as though it is. They aren't interested in learning what nutritious means, and assume that whatever their friends heard/read is healthy, is factual and 100% accurate.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    isn't there a saying that goes something like "a fool and his money are soon parted" ?
    could it be that many poor people not only don't earn much money, but can't handle money when they do ?
    Most people are poor because they were born poor, rich people rarely become poor over the course of their lives, and poor people rarely become rich. I doubt I'd have a university education right now if higher education wasn't public in Quebec.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    I think most of it comes from nutrition deficiency, and cultural peculiarities.

    Cultural peculiarities like folk traditions that value homelessness, vagrancy and common sense vs possessions, aspirations and education.

    And nutrition deficiencies caused due to the lack of nutritious food, not as a direct result of being poor, but of being interested in things other than health. Health is not important to most poor people. For many of those that talk as though it's important, don't act as though it is. They aren't interested in learning what nutritious means, and assume that whatever their friends heard/read is healthy, is factual and 100% accurate.
    I wonder how much nutrition plays a part, but I'm not sure it's a large part. My diet used to consist of a bag of Doritos and a chocolate bar for breakfast, a few Jamaican meat patties for lunch and maybe a medium pizza for dinner. Add to the fact that I grew up poor...to the extreme that we would sometimes eat peanut butter toast for an entire day. While I'm at, my dad died when I was 12, and my step-father would punch me in the face for not taking out the garbage (no sympathy, please).

    That being said, I'm smarter than your average bear. Statistically, there's no logical reason I turned out the way I did. I just always "had to know the answer" and I wanted to be better at everything than everyone else. When I got into something (acoustics, internal combustion engines, fluid dynamics) I liked, I immersed myself nose deep and soaked in everything I could.

    So yeah, I was poor, and health was not important to me as you pointed out (it is now that I have a family I want to see grow up). I'm led to believe that (potential) intelligence is more genetic than social, but the drive to make good for yourself is learned/taught/picked up. My siblings also learn very quickly and easily, are logical and reasonable and excel when they apply themselves, but didn't have the same drive to be the best that I did. I guess that accounts for the difference that isn't inherent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Stupid poor people 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    I'm not implying causation, or correlation for that matter... no, it's more like frustration



    But are all poor people relatively stupid?
    Define poor?

    If we're talking no access to formailised education, then those people could, unless, their parents were able to educate their own children adequately , potentially grow up remaining illiterate for a lifetime. A person can have few possessions but yet be brilliant ,there are many reasons for homelessness and aptitude doesn't always ensure this doesn't happen. Mind you, there is a difference between being illiterate and being stupid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    My bad, I didn't say what has to do with nutrition. I was referring to the ability to earn money, not intelligence.


    Doritos are about 3 bucks a bag, chocolate bars are a buck each, a medium pizza about 8 bucks, and whatever a Jamaican meat patty is??...

    First point: you being poor had little to do with your diet, since these things are not cheep

    Second point: saying that you have defied statistics(in different words) is silly, even if a statistic says "such and such activity increases chances of such and such result by 99%" you can be that 1%, and this doesn't mean you have defied the logic of the statistic. If you defy the logic of the statistic, you change the statistic, since statistics are based on real world occurrences, they are ideally updated as more information is gathered, or they correspond to a particular group in a particular period of time, as a means to determine(through induction) possibilities in other groups at other periods of time.

    Third: what about your personal story is meant to prove that if you had more nutrients in your diet, you would not have been any smarter?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    32
    "That being said, I'm smarter than your average bear. Statistically, there's no logical reason I turned out the way I did. I just always "had to know the answer" and I wanted to be better at everything than everyone else. When I got into something (acoustics, internal combustion engines, fluid dynamics) I liked, I immersed myself nose deep and soaked in everything I could."

    Another question of relevence here could also be this.. Of all of the considered geniuses historically, how many of those people had smart parents?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    My bad, I didn't say what has to do with nutrition. I was referring to the ability to earn money, not intelligence.


    Doritos are about 3 bucks a bag, chocolate bars are a buck each, a medium pizza about 8 bucks, and whatever a Jamaican meat patty is??...

    First point: you being poor had little to do with your diet, since these things are not cheep

    Second point: saying that you have defied statistics(in different words) is silly, even if a statistic says "such and such activity increases chances of such and such result by 99%" you can be that 1%, and this doesn't mean you have defied the logic of the statistic. If you defy the logic of the statistic, you change the statistic, since statistics are based on real world occurrences, they are ideally updated as more information is gathered, or they correspond to a particular group in a particular period of time, as a means to determine(through induction) possibilities in other groups at other periods of time.

    Third: what about your personal story is meant to prove that if you had more nutrients in your diet, you would not have been any smarter?
    I'm not the one that claimed poor diet makes you stupid, or that stupid people have poor diets.

    As a young adult, I wasn't on welfware, but I made enough money to buy Doritos, Jamaican meat patties, or whatever else I wanted. My point about those specific foods, was that although I did have a sub-par diet when I was a child, eating even worse as an adult didn't put me in a state of mental retardation. It had absolutey zero effect on the way my brain operated (at least in regards to intelligence).

    Also, there were days when I still didn't have money to buy junk food all day, so I'd eat pasta or sandwiches instead. Regardless, I didn't eat many fruits or vegetables, and you can't tell me that 5 servings of the greens everyday in addition to carbs and meat isn't cheap.

    I'm not making a claim that I may have not been smarter had I eaten better, but anyone that says a poor diet makes you stupid, is way off base.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    i don't think I said anything like that, did I?

    saying it has absolutely no effect, is equally way off base.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    i don't think I said anything like that, did I?

    saying it has absolutely no effect, is equally way off base.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    I'm not making a claim that I may have not been smarter had I eaten better
    Regardless, any evidence that relates diet to intelligence is speculation at best.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    any evidence that relates diet to intelligence is speculation at best.
    Not quite, but nice try.
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...ch&as_sdt=2001
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    any evidence that relates diet to intelligence is speculation at best.
    Not quite, but nice try.
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...ch&as_sdt=2001
    A google search is not evidence to prove otherwise. Feel free to weed through that, and present the empirical evidence to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    No. I won't be doing that. There were mountains of empirical evidence at the link I previously shared.

    Nutrition impacts neural development and cognitive abilities, and this conclusion is based on much more than "speculation." The search link was to show just how preposterous your assertion that the "relationship between diet and intelligence is speculation at best" was.

    Of course social conditions play a role, but there is a very strong relationship between diet/nutrition and intelligence, so stating that there is not (or that such a conclusion is based on speculation and nothing more) betrays your disconnect from reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    well by definition you are wrong
    speculation, as you are implying it, is the act of taking a claim to be true, without sufficient evidence.

    Since sufficient is a value term, your claim, that all evidence on this subject is speculation: is speculation at best.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    The view of the American Psychological Association
    ....

    They state there is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelli...al_Association
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Since when does malnutrition not fall under the umbrella of "diet?"

    On top of that... The study you linked, Harold, shows only that ones diet during childhood does not show any strong correlations with one's performance on an IQ test later in life (a test which is itself a rather poor measure of intelligence, more or less dismissed by anyone seeking a valid measure).

    Further, if that's not a good enough argument for you, then try this... Much depends on ones definition of intelligence. For example, there is a huge effect of B vitamins on memory, even in adults, and the abundance of evidence suggests that intelligence and memory are inseparably coupled. Is anyone here claiming that diet does not include vitamins and minerals?

    Either way, the claim that the relationship of diet and intelligence is all based on "speculation" is far removed from reality, no matter how you slice it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by newnothing
    I think the social environment surrounding poor people affects their intelligence.

    I think any domestic violence experienced by a mother still carrying her baby in utero will have a direct impact on cognitive development of that baby. That isn't limited to the low socio-economic areas but I accept it would be more likely to occur in such family settings. This has an impact on brain function and behaviour which inturn can lead to less choices in adulthood ie if these behaviour issues impede learning in a school setting, for example.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Since when does malnutrition not fall under the umbrella of "diet?"
    True, but I thought it was a relevant piece of information in the context of this thread, in which somebody mentioned eating Doritos and Jamaican patties as an example of poor nutrition.

    On top of that... The study you linked, Harold, shows only that ones diet during childhood does not show any strong correlations with one's performance on an IQ test later in life (a test which is itself a rather poor measure of intelligence, more or less dismissed by anyone seeking a valid measure).
    What is the valid measure? If there isn't a valid measure, then the whole discussion is indeed speculative, isn't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    No. I won't be doing that. There were mountains of empirical evidence at the link I previously shared.

    Nutrition impacts neural development and cognitive abilities, and this conclusion is based on much more than "speculation." The search link was to show just how preposterous your assertion that the "relationship between diet and intelligence is speculation at best" was.

    Of course social conditions play a role, but there is a very strong relationship between diet/nutrition and intelligence, so stating that there is not (or that such a conclusion is based on speculation and nothing more) betrays your disconnect from reality.
    You won't be doing that, because you know just as well as I do, that your claim is all bark no bite. "Mountains of empirical evidence?" I thought this was a science forum, so I'm rather disappointed at your definition of empirical evidence. Most of those links resulted in a single page of pdf copied from a 30 year old science journal.

    There is evidence that shows nutrition TO PLAY A PART in development and cognitive ability, but it's not the deal breaker. There are WAY too many variables involved, the most important and obvious being socio-economic implications. Poor people care less about the success of their offspring, as they themselves, are uneducated. Poor people tend to have poor diet, so obviously diet is the deal breaker for intelligence, right? C'mon...nice try.

    Please explain how on every IQ test I've completed, I've acheived between 130 and 140, even with my horrible diet. Please explain how when I applied for a job a few years ago, I did the Wechsler in 10 of the alloted 30 minutes and got only one answer incorrect; even when I probably had a chocolate bar and some pepperettes on the way to the interview. Please explain how I wrote my Hydraulic Specialist exam in 45 of the 180 minutes allotted, and acheived 94% (and half the persons didn't even pass after the full 180 minutes).

    Finally, please explain how, with your mountain of empirical evidence, I'm not a complete retard being a person that has had a poor diet my entire life.

    No matter how many times you insult me or my claim, your arguement doesn't get any better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    i don't think I said anything like that, did I?

    saying it has absolutely no effect, is equally way off base.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    I'm not making a claim that I may have not been smarter had I eaten better
    Regardless, any evidence that relates diet to intelligence is speculation at best.
    Shameful Admission: Gen1GT, I screwed up your post. I intended to click "Quote" and leave my reply, trimming off the last sentence since I was replying directly to the first. It seems I clicked the "Edit" button, which resides directly adjacent to the "Quote" button on a moderator screen. I corrected it as best I can, but I don't remember exactly what the second sentence was to restore it.

    Not to those who are educated in the fields of anthropology, sociology, or pediatric medicine. The correlation between nutrition and intelligence is a very well accepted one. Indeed, there are good data that indicate direct causation between nutrition and intelligence since brain development and encephalization depend on certain proteins and fats.

    Several researchers have used the already well-accepted correlation between intelligence and nutrition to provide real-world explanations for trends that are either observed or desired such as increased intelligence in developing nations (Lynn 1990).

    Twin studies have reinforced the accepted causal link between nutrition and intelligence (Bouchard et al 1990) as well as genetic variation.

    "The quality of nutrition of pregnant women and young children, the widespread malnutrition in underdevelped countries, health, education, and dysgenic fertility all affect the intelligence of the populations. Thus, it would be possible to increase the level of intelligence in poor countries by providing healthy nutrition for pregnant women and young children (Lynn and VanHanen 2002).

    The link between diet/nutrition and intelligence is a well understood and accepted phenomenon by anthropologists, sociologists, physicians, and economists among many others.


    References:

    Bouchard, Thomas J., et al (1990). Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart, in The Science of Mental Health: Personality and Personality Disorder, ed. S.E. Hyman. New York: Routledge.

    Lynn, Richard (1990). The role of nutrition in secular increases in intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(3), 273-285.

    Lynn, Richard, and Tatu VanHanen (2002) IQ and the Wealth of the Nations. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    we would need to consider not just your diet, but your activities as well for your entire life, feel free to make a detailed list, then give us sufficient time to confirm it as accurate... needless to say, I smell a straw man being stuffed

    population health is different than individual health

    suggesting to a group of people something that is generally goods for them is different then talking to any of the individuals in that group about what is particularly good for them. Fopr example when talking to the group you need to concider common activities, behaviors, deficiencies, illnesses and access to resources, etc; when talking to the person you need to consider particular activities.

    This is why in many places they say "Sugar is bad" it's not because sugar is bad, but because in these places where this is said, people eat too much sugar: so generally, it will have a positive effect on the health of the population. There are nonetheless individuals who it might have a negative effect on.

    If you can't figure it out: We are talking about populations here, not individuals. There are exceptions for every generality, that doesn't mean we need a "Gray's Anatomy of Conjoined Twin" just because some pair wants to be recognized as something other than a statistical accident.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    My points being made aren't directed at general populations, but individuals. And I'm not speaking of mal-nutrition, but poor nutrition. I can't imagine anyone that hasn't eaten in two days would be particularily bright.

    However - and without reading any of the studies - how can anyone differentiate how much someone is stupid from being poor and how stupid someone is from being mal-nurished?

    Marcus, you back up my whole point; there are exceptions to every generality, and if we're speaking in generalities, nothing is empirical. Nobody can say having a poor diet makes you stupid. Nobody can say having a textbook diet will make you intelligent.

    If this were the case, professional athletes, vegans and personal trainers would all be geniuses...and we all know how far from the truth that is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    32
    -
    Please explain how on every IQ test I've completed, I've acheived between 130 and 140, even with my horrible diet. Please explain how when I applied for a job a few years ago, I did the Wechsler in 10 of the alloted 30 minutes and got only one answer incorrect; even when I probably had a chocolate bar and some pepperettes on the way to the interview. Please explain how I wrote my Hydraulic Specialist exam in 45 of the 180 minutes allotted, and acheived 94% (and half the persons didn't even pass after the full 180 minutes).

    Finally, please explain how, with your mountain of empirical evidence, I'm not a complete retard being a person that has had a poor diet my entire life.

    No matter how many times you insult me or my claim, your arguement doesn't get any better.
    -

    I would like to direct a question toward yourself.

    How would you explain your aptitude and would you say it was hampered or heightened by your diet?

    Do you think your diet provided a benefit?

    What do you attribute your level of brain power to?

    *curious* as to what your introspective thoughts are on this?

    And whether you would expect your case to be the 'norm' in the general populace?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    However - and without reading any of the studies - how can anyone differentiate how much someone is stupid from being poor and how stupid someone is from being mal-nurished?
    You should try reading the studies, then. It's generally explained their reasoning and methods within.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I don't know if those studies correlate intelligence (IQ) or success in later life ("smarts").

    I don't see how smarts can be separated from nutrition, even infant nutrition. Both quite literally grow from the other. Newborns don't just passively eat what's offered. No, first a newborn baby learns to eat, and eat efficiently. That's no given! A newborn then trains the caregivers how and when to feed it. It may be more or less successful. A stupid baby is going to be fed according to parents' needs not its metabolic optimum. This can cause a lot of wasteful grief, as we've all heard I'm sure.



    For anecdote, my son latched onto the breast really quickly. I think he bashed his face crying at the breast for maybe five minutes before he got it. So remarkably he'd already gained weight at the four-hour postnatal exam (that's after the poop), and, being a relatively lively post-term birth and demanding character he continued high on the curve. He learned to grab the breast quite early also. That's all well and good for the first weeks. He'd shown that early aptitude wins a jump start.

    Meanwhile my son's less imperious little mates got their bearings and "settled" into their own bodies and environments. My son's curve began to dip toward the mean. Why? Because quite honestly this baby was a royal pain. He was too engaging, too keen to ensure a constant supply of food. Basically, he thought too much about it. His mom began to sleep whole hours at a stretch, since genuinely hungry or not that kid wouldn't quit demanding.

    Around six months, the baby learned to crawl across a bed or sofa, groping for boobies. So he was able to feed on demand while mom snored. He became quite good at foraging through bras and bedding, getting hold of a breast, and using papa's ribs as a springboard to roll mama into better position. His weight curve climbed again.



    Of course a baby also learns to eat solid food. How well the baby eats depends very much on aptitude. You just can't measure splattered banana and cracker crumbs against a baby's weight, to find how much it's eating and of what. A smart baby will eat more efficiently, earlier.

    Children learn how to use spoons, forks, chopsticks, steak knives. How to get the box of cereal and pour milk. Especially poor children learn to take care of their own needs. They even learn to pilfer. A smart kid will find ways to secure optimum nutrition, while a stupid kid will fail. I think that people who didn't already know that by about age 10, must have had a sheltered upbringing.

    To eat, one must first think.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    To eat, one must first think.
    Not when it's a genetically programmed instinct compelling them to do so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I don't believe you know how babies and their feeding develops. They begin with a few very primitive reflexes. The rest they have to work out as their minds are able.

    Passive babies typically eat poorly and go underweight. Enthusiastic babies get what they want when they want, and grow healthier. These patterns often continue right up into adolescence and beyond. It's not a simple question of how much food is available, like mindless instinct just takes care of it. Maybe to you, an adult, acquiring food and eating seems instinctual. Because you've learned it so well. You dismiss the thought required.

    Smart baby: Toddler Survives 2½ Weeks On Ketchup, Mustard, Dry Pasta

    Not-so-smart baby: Starved toddler looked like infant, mom charged

    Less extreme examples you meet everyday. Any parent or pediatrician can assure you that complacent babies put on weight slowly. Those are not the kids you'll later see urging parents around the supermarket.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    So multiple straw men are being stuffed. No one that I'm aware of (although i admit I'm not keeping up on the entire discussion) has said anything about nutrition making people smart. This would be a ridiculous claim, almost as ridiculous as claiming there is no relation between intelligence and IQ, RQ, GI or any other measure of mental ability,
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Well regarding nutrition cause vs. smartness cause I did concede each grows from the other... before tossing it to contest inow.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by question mark
    -
    Please explain how on every IQ test I've completed, I've acheived between 130 and 140, even with my horrible diet. Please explain how when I applied for a job a few years ago, I did the Wechsler in 10 of the alloted 30 minutes and got only one answer incorrect; even when I probably had a chocolate bar and some pepperettes on the way to the interview. Please explain how I wrote my Hydraulic Specialist exam in 45 of the 180 minutes allotted, and acheived 94% (and half the persons didn't even pass after the full 180 minutes).

    Finally, please explain how, with your mountain of empirical evidence, I'm not a complete retard being a person that has had a poor diet my entire life.

    No matter how many times you insult me or my claim, your arguement doesn't get any better.
    -

    I would like to direct a question toward yourself.

    How would you explain your aptitude and would you say it was hampered or heightened by your diet?

    Do you think your diet provided a benefit?

    What do you attribute your level of brain power to?

    *curious* as to what your introspective thoughts are on this?

    And whether you would expect your case to be the 'norm' in the general populace?
    Would I have been smarter with a more healthy diet? Probably, but my intelligence has always been a questionless benefit, rather than a detriment. It's like when persons asks Usain Bolt if he would have been faster at the Olympics if he didn't start looking around and pounding his chest in the last 10 metres.

    Besides, if my level of mental capacity were ever in question, I wouldn't have changed my diet, but exercised my brain more.

    There are no finites with intelligence!

    My son didn't breast feed (however, my wife pumped for 3 months), and was on formula most of his first year. This is supposed to be detriment in more than just brain power. He's 18 months old now, has a vocabulary of 100-150 words (it grows everyday), can recognize and say all primary and secondary colours, most geometric shapes (including a semi-circle, but he can't say that one), he can recognize and say numbers 1 to 10 (but can't count sequentially yet) and can recognize all letters of the alphabet (but can only say half of them).

    I don't know on what scale that compares to average, but I know it's well above. My point is that there are no finites with intelligence. My point would be even stronger if I told you all how many drugs I did in my 20's.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Well regarding nutrition cause vs. smartness cause I did concede each grows from the other... before tossing it to contest inow.
    Why aren't pro-athletes, vegans and personal trainers all geniuses? Why aren't all couch-potatoes, fat Trekkies and overweight scientists idiots?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    The nature versus nurture debate is over. In case anyone missed the result it was a tie.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Well regarding nutrition cause vs. smartness cause I did concede each grows from the other... before tossing it to contest inow.
    Why aren't pro-athletes, vegans and personal trainers all geniuses? Why aren't all couch-potatoes, fat Trekkies and overweight scientists idiots?
    Each group does eat and does think (though largely about food in your examples). My point is not that overinflated belly or cranium pipes its surplus bounty to the other organ. It was that thought requires eating (if starve, can't think) and eating requires thought (if cabbage, can't chew). Securing food is what the brains of all animals are for, not the other way around (Sharks glut to grow big brains?).

    I've taken issue with inow's statement that eating requires no thought because "it's a genetically programmed instinct". No, I'm sure that securing food requires thought on the part of humans, regardless of age, but especially among poor children. Children aren't simply passive eaters growing their brains like camel's humps as inow suggested. From day one they're engaging the world with their minds and changing it for their own betterment (conning dad to buy the only breakfast cereal with sugar coating on every chocolate). So childrens' thinking well leads to their eating well.

    That's not to say fretting about how to get the next meal promotes a high IQ. I would say intelligence helps a child in this predicament. Something more akin to "street smarts" helps most. I have some personal experience in this. That's why first ignorance and then dismissal of a child's mind to thrive angers me.

    And I'm not saying a genius will eat excessively or a pudgy baby must be brilliant.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Well regarding nutrition cause vs. smartness cause I did concede each grows from the other... before tossing it to contest inow.
    I'd assume there are a variety of feedback mechanisms, not simply that one causes the other, or that it's a closed circular system.


    Why aren't pro-athletes, vegans and personal trainers all geniuses? Why aren't all couch-potatoes, fat Trekkies and overweight scientists idiots?
    Another straw man. Because something doesn't have the same effect on everyone, doesn't mean it has no effect on anyone.

    On a side note, pro athletes are athletic geniuses. Genius = "a person of surpassing excellence"

    Your body will use resources as it sees fit. If you lift a weight, it will make your arm strong, this is not merely a matter of adding muscle fiber, but also coordinating nervous activity to function more efficiently. If you watch tv you are more mentally active than when you are doing the butterfly stroke; so it makes sense that couch potatoes might have a higher IQ on average than athletes, if all other characteristics are the same.

    There are very intelligent athletes, and very stupid couch potatoes, though. Because people's lives are more complex than whether they are an athlete, couch potato, or something else.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I don't believe you know how babies and their feeding develops.

    <...>

    Passive babies typically eat poorly and go underweight. Enthusiastic babies get what they want when they want, and grow healthier. These patterns often continue right up into adolescence and beyond. It's not a simple question of how much food is available, like mindless instinct just takes care of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I've taken issue with inow's statement that eating requires no thought because "it's a genetically programmed instinct".

    <...>

    Children aren't simply passive eaters growing their brains like camel's humps as inow suggested.

    Pong, you seem to be reading much more into my words than was intended. Here is what I said... In full context and with the quote to which I was responding included:


    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    To eat, one must first think.
    Not when it's a genetically programmed instinct compelling them to do so.
    My suggestion was that instinct plays a greater role than thought when infants seek food. Looking back, though, we seem to be arguing similar points. I'm just defining the concept of "thought" more narrowly than you.

    You seem to be implying that "thought" includes any activity in the brain, even if it's unconscious.
    I am implying that "thought" is about intention and problem solving to achieve a specific goal.

    In short, you are conflating instinct with thought, and I'm simply correcting you that they are not the same. With "thought" being defined as distinct from instinct, we can see that your assertion, "To eat, one must first think" is somewhat misguided... or, at the very least, relies on an overly broad and far too inclusive definition of the thought concept.

    I hope that clarifies matters, and shows why marcus was calling you out for strawmen for the comments I quoted at the beginning of this post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Well regarding nutrition cause vs. smartness cause I did concede each grows from the other... before tossing it to contest inow.
    I'd assume there are a variety of feedback mechanisms, not simply that one causes the other, or that it's a closed circular system.


    Why aren't pro-athletes, vegans and personal trainers all geniuses? Why aren't all couch-potatoes, fat Trekkies and overweight scientists idiots?
    Another straw man. Because something doesn't have the same effect on everyone, doesn't mean it has no effect on anyone.

    On a side note, pro athletes are athletic geniuses. Genius = "a person of surpassing excellence"

    Your body will use resources as it sees fit. If you lift a weight, it will make your arm strong, this is not merely a matter of adding muscle fiber, but also coordinating nervous activity to function more efficiently. If you watch tv you are more mentally active than when you are doing the butterfly stroke; so it makes sense that couch potatoes might have a higher IQ on average than athletes, if all other characteristics are the same.

    There are very intelligent athletes, and very stupid couch potatoes, though. Because people's lives are more complex than whether they are an athlete, couch potato, or something else.
    So then can we agree that eating "junk" food doesn't make you stupid?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    No, I would need to be convinced of the validity of that statement before agreeing with it.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    You seem to be implying that "thought" includes any activity in the brain, even if it's unconscious.
    I am implying that "thought" is about intention and problem solving to achieve a specific goal.

    In short, you are conflating instinct with thought, and I'm simply correcting you that they are not the same. With "thought" being defined as distinct from instinct, we can see that your assertion, "To eat, one must first think" is somewhat misguided... or, at the very least, relies on an overly broad and far too inclusive definition of the thought concept.
    I've heard it before: "They don't really think because they're just following instinct." A lot of people hold dear to that one. Apply it to animals, children, savages, idiots, and our own embarrassing life histories. Appealing notion.

    It's full of holes, and impedes insight.

    For hole: You would probably agree that IQ performance and early literacy characterize a smart person. Yet these operations are not your conscious thoughts. Try to remember when you were in the "headspace" of this child:
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    He's 18 months old now, has a vocabulary of 100-150 words (it grows everyday), can recognize and say all primary and secondary colours, most geometric shapes (including a semi-circle, but he can't say that one), he can recognize and say numbers 1 to 10
    That's keen, deliberate thought, not instinct. It's building the engines which drive IQ score and sharp thinking in later life. It becomes subjectively unconscious. Subjectively unconscious doesn't mean it's unconscious or unthinking in itself, then or ever. You've tried to paint the minds of children as instinct, or genetic programming even, yet we find them full of conscious thoughts.

    Sad truth is first word many North American children learn to read is McDonald's. Is that not "intention and problem solving to achieve a specific goal"? Intention and problem solving didn't begin there either, as I illustrated with my own newborn baby's suckling.

    For impediment: The notion that what you presently can't grasp consciously must be dumb instinct, is essentially schizophrenic. It's a convenience of the ego protecting us from self examination. It allies with like minds in other individuals, for corroboration, and justifies a raft of ethics on the theory that other sentiences don't exist. This does make it very difficult to understand minds dismissed as instinct including large parts of our own minds and history.


    Now in context of the original proposition "childhood nutrition determines intelligence". Causation depends on the premise that children's minds are passive and don't feedback nutrition. We find that children's minds actively engage the environment and manipulate it to secure nutrition. We find mind and nutrition mutually causative. Moreover I think we could find that Oliver Twist represents a real demographic.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    You seem to be implying that "thought" includes any activity in the brain, even if it's unconscious.
    I am implying that "thought" is about intention and problem solving to achieve a specific goal.

    In short, you are conflating instinct with thought, and I'm simply correcting you that they are not the same. With "thought" being defined as distinct from instinct, we can see that your assertion, "To eat, one must first think" is somewhat misguided... or, at the very least, relies on an overly broad and far too inclusive definition of the thought concept.
    I've heard it before: "They don't really think because they're just following instinct." A lot of people hold dear to that one. Apply it to animals, children, savages, idiots, and our own embarrassing life histories. Appealing notion.

    It's full of holes, and impedes insight.
    Read more closely, Pong. The only issue here is that you are using an incredibly broad definition of "thought," whereas I'm using a more narrow and focused definition as informed by the cognition and neurobiological literature.

    No need to spout a bunch of nonsense about something I'm not even saying, or how I lack insight... Mmm'Kay?


    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    For hole: You would probably agree that IQ performance and early literacy characterize a smart person.
    No, actually. I would not agree. I'd instead draw your attention to the fact that IQ tests are not valid measures of overall intelligence, are wrought with inconsistencies and bias, and are generally rejected by all serious present-day researchers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    We can dodge IQ or early literacy as measures of "stupid" if you like. Let's just say quality of thought i.e. smarts.

    Alright... so with with your definition of "think" i.e. "not instinct":

    Do babies think? Yes/no.

    If yes, does the quality of their thinking affect their nutrition? Yes/no.

    If yes, is this more so in context of poor environment (e.g. ghetto)? Yes/no.

    Please elaborate on your answers.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    We can dodge IQ or early literacy as measures of "stupid" if you like.
    I am dodging nothing. If you are unaware of the issues with IQ tests, then your grasp of the subject matter is suspect. It's really that simple.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Do babies think? Yes/no.
    Yes, but an infant only a few minutes/hours outside of the womb eats due to instinct, not thought. Thought is a process of using your mind to consider something carefully. Cognition is not the mere propagation of action potentials along neurons. You are conflating neurological activity with thought, and this is where I am directing my primary opposition to your points. My lone contention is that one CAN eat without first thinking, contrary to your earlier assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    If yes, does the quality of their thinking affect their nutrition? Yes/no.
    This question is rooted in a speculation of yours which is questionable, at best. The more relevant argument pertains to the intelligence and thinking of the parent or care-taker and how they respond to the calls of their child... Not whether or not the child itself engages in the proper calls or signaling for food.

    The child's abilities certainly play a role, but it is, by no means, the critical factor in an infants nutrition. Of course, this changes later in life as the child's communication abilities improve and they have a more fully developed Broca's area, but that is not the argument you seem to be making here.

    Your argument is silly on its face, as it suggests that children suffering from aphasia would not be fed... or would not be fed well. The child is not the key variable in this argument you are making. The parent is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    If yes, is this more so in context of poor environment (e.g. ghetto)? Yes/no.
    Ghetto? Really?

    As I've alluded to already, the two key factors in a young infants nutrition are a) availability of quality food, and b) the parent's responsiveness to the needs of the child in providing that food. Other factors play a role, but those roles are so insignificant as to be safely disregarded here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Please elaborate on your answers.
    Does the above clarify sufficiently?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Ghetto? Really?
    Apparently we're on different pages. I'm thinking about child development in poor environments.

    Anyway, you've rounded out earlier statements well enough for me.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    just because a community is low income and underdeveloped is not a cause, but an effect, of the average individuals not having access to resources. Individuals CAN still get resources, and can still choose how to use them. Same with the body, our body is always trying to use resources in the most effective way it knows how. If we don't use a tissue, it will atrophy, if we use a tissue in one way, it will grow to better suit that usage; if we use it in a different way, it will grow to better suit this usage(example, muscle fiber strength vs muscle fiber contraction speed)

    Our body has a limited supply of resources with which to do this with however. We eat to supply our body with the raw materials with which to sustain our bodies life long adaptation.

    So undoubtedly, your lifestyle(activities and environment) determines what your body "wants" to become, but it can only become that in so much as it is provided with the necessary nutrients; if it doesn't have enough to choose between two things, it will sacrifice the lesser important(lesser used) function for the more important function.... that might not be 100% accurate, I don't know enough about the mechanisms involved to say for sure
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53 Re: Stupid poor people 
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    I'm not implying causation, or correlation for that matter... no, it's more like frustration



    But are all poor people relatively stupid?

    I would say, probably. I see the people in the line in front of me at the gas station buying lottery tickets, and for the most part, they seem poor and probably not too smart (or, at least, they do not understand probability and statistics).


    But I'd take it a step further...

    There are a lot of folks that you might think are rich. They have fancy stuff and perhaps are well educated and have good careers. But many of these folks are in debt up to their eyeballs. The stuff they "own" really belongs to some lender. Would I say these "rich" people are smart...? I would not.



    No... I think the really smart folks (financially speaking) are the ones who are not in debt of any kind and are able to live off their income, however large or small it may be. I would call these people wealthy, not rich per se.
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    debt can be used intelligently

    like if you owe someone enough money, and prove ti them that you will be able to pay them back(thus making them more money than if you went bankrupt or skipped town) only if they loan you more
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Poor people = income in, expenses out...nothing extra, nothing left over
    Middle class - income in, loans in, expenses out, liabilities out, negative net worth
    Rich people = income in, assets that produce income, low expenses, no liabilities

    (Thanks Rich Dad Poor Dad!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    over simplistic and unfounded

    If you earn $100 and you spend $10, according to Gen1GT's formula, you will be in a higher class than someone who earns $100,000 and spends $99,999

    When considering class, only look at annual income.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57 Re: Stupid poor people 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    I'm not implying causation, or correlation for that matter... no, it's more like frustration



    But are all poor people relatively stupid?
    No, Michael Faraday was poor and uneducated, yet he turned out to be one of the most influential of all scientists. Basically all electrical devices and all modern technology has some direct connection to Faraday's discoveries, just ask an electrical engineer.

    There can obviously be stupid poor people and stupid rich people. There's just too many factors involved to claim that
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    i know, i was just being obtuse
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59 Re: Stupid poor people 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    I'm not implying causation, or correlation for that matter... no, it's more like frustration



    But are all poor people relatively stupid?
    Wouldn't say that at all. To become ritch, you may have to be:

    - ruthless/cynically
    - group thinker
    - cheap

    Many of those who are poor, are mentally ill, either by depression or distorted, but may still be very intelligent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    12
    I'm surprised you got so many responses. The way you worded the question is actually quite offensive.

    I think you should lay out your family history, your income, etc. so we can see how your experiences helped you to come to such a conclusion.

    I for one was raised on welfare, wic, Indian Health Service (free healthcare), medicaid, indian commodities program. We weren't just poor, but below poverty level.

    Out of all my mother's 10 siblings only one did not attend college. Not all of them got opportunity. Some were treated poorly and weren't given opportunity because they took on the indian traits and weren't taken seriously. Others did quite well.

    It took me 16 years since high school graduation to earn an income considered middle-class. I am not stupid. I can attest to the frustration some can exprience by having no opportunity, which results in self-destructive tendencies, which I see in many of my cousins.

    Someone has to be poor for you to be wealthy. Intelligence has little to do with being wealthy, like the above post, it has more to do with ruthlessness, competitiveness, handling money well, having a social network that allows you to maintain your lifestyle and trust funds.

    Your question shows the ignorance of those raised with privilege. Depending on your true background, I could use your post as an example to start a new subject.

    Are all wealthy people ignorant and self-righteous?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    28
    I don't think it's as black and white as poor people are stupid.

    Personally,

    I think character has a massive part to play in becoming wealthy - as does as does perseverance. For many - there will also be a fair amount of luck.

    I also think that society is structured in a certain way so as to accommodate certain types more than others.

    E.g. Someone like Billy Connolly.. Left school... not a massive success.. ended up working in a shipyard... played in a little folk band.. found out people liked his funny commentary between songs - did more.. became comedian became popular... did really well.. became really rich.
    Would he have been classed as stupid when he worked in a shipyard? - By some, I guess yes.

    I think there are loads of people not massively different from him who never managed to get the big break... so are still working for peanuts but may actually have a talent that has never nor will ever be discovered,... I wouldn't class them as stupid.

    Some people who might go into one discipline because they feel/are pushed into it by their parents... and are terrible at it... get sacked over and over again.. doesn't mean they are stupid.... I'd say that they entered the wrong discipline..

    E.g. someone may be pushed into some kind of office job... when they might be a massively gifted dancer/artist/musician/singer etc...

    There is not so much money in those disciplines unless they make it big...
    Graffiti artists.... for example... Banksy made it big.. but there are loads of other equally talented artists who have never made it.

    There is so much more to say on this.. so many more examples can be given... but in short my opinion is....

    No.... poor people don't for one second have to be stupid.

    And Not ALL wealthy people are self righteous and arrogant....

    I don't think money makes people bad/wicked... I think it takes people who may have bad/wicked tendencies to manifest that side of their character....
    - Look at politics.... Particularly American politics.... Bush
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3
    I live in a family of four, and my wife and I bring home maybe $20,000 a year. We are well below poverty. My IQ is 138, my wife's is 147, and though both my childrens' IQs have not been tested, they are at minimum the level of their peers.

    I think a lot of poor people just choose to neglect academics in light of their social environment. And I live in an apartment complex with a lot of poor people. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    97
    We're getting a lot of individual stories, even if as little as one out of thousand would not fit a certain model we would still have millions of people claiming they don't fit the pattern and thus the model is wrong. Now when it comes to something like this I would guess the pattern is even weaker than one in a thousand so no doubt we can get lots of examples of smart people from poor families. (Not to mention stupid people from rich families.)

    Now lets talk about the big picture.

    Are smart people more likely to end up wealthy than "stupid" people? I would guess so.

    Or if we choose to look at economy first and brains later:

    Do children from wealthy families end up smarter than the children of poor families? Hard to say, but they will probably have an easier time getting an education.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Stupidity happens regardless of wealth. The two simply aren't connected, and nothing can really drive a cause and effect source to them. High intelligence tends to lead to wealth, where as utter stupidity tends to lead towards either the poor house or an early death. There are a lot of exceptions, and a lot of rich stupid people and rich poor people. Intelligence has a tendency to occur without rigorous education, as well. Just because a person didn't go to college, doesn't, by ANY means, mean that the person is stupid. Likewise, a person with an associates in liberal arts isn't consequently the next Einstein...

    There is a correlation, to an extent, but no causation identified.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Stupidity happens irregardless of wealth.
    Although your position is good, your use of "irregardless" lessens its impact. I am not an english professor and, indeed, I may have made several grammatical errors in the past, but that pseudo-word always makes me cringe every time I see it or hear it. Although used by many, "irregardless" is not a word and a waste of the english language. Regardless conveys the meaning that most intend by the nonsensical use of irregardless. I apologize for the lecture, but I just hate that useless word.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Stupidity happens irregardless of wealth.
    Although your position is good, your use of "irregardless" lessens its impact. I am not an english professor and, indeed, I may have made several grammatical errors in the past, but that pseudo-word always makes me cringe every time I see it or hear it. Although used by many, "irregardless" is not a word and a waste of the english language. Regardless conveys the meaning that most intend by the nonsensical use of irregardless. I apologize for the lecture, but I just hate that useless word.
    I know, I just personally enjoy adding in the extra 'ir', simply because the two words have identical meaning and both are, technically, words. I'll respect your preference and allow the word to die though, and edit my post.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Fort Lee, NJ, USA
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Besides the obvious connection between nutrition and mental ability, you should review Maslow.
    Even more obvious connection is between the amount of education received and mental ability.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    3
    to imply some fact exist, while using oneself as the basis of comparison, to derive any conclusion, is the inception point of all stupidity that mortal's create into existence in itself?

    for what use it's own personal experience to quantify any data, has entered self bias into the equasion, thus contaminating any results, rendering them useless?

    such is of no more intelligence than to say all old people are mean bad driver's?

    if it is not true, at all times, in all cases, than it is not enough truth to even be quantified as true data, but then, one would have to say, some old people are mean bad drivers, and some old people are kind expert drivers?

    but, the "opposite" of each thing that can be recognised with the human perception, is left off, tdue to self bias, or to prove what was wished to be proved?

    there is no balance in partial data, which one needs to create a "whole piece" of data set?

    winter kills hundreds in harsh winter storm?

    logic must add to this, and, "winter renews the entire planet for all life to exist"?

    anything but, leave generalization's as some purported fact, obscuring the true most facts that can be recognised for assimilation, in essence then, each generalization of the mind, if it be left as fact to the self, actually reduce the intelligence incrementally, into the olivion of self validation run amock?

    it is far more profitable to examine all things for purpose, rather to name them, thinking this be the basis of determining something once called "intelligence", for anything can name an obect, and identify an object, or attribute, or appearance, but rather the goal of any true greater knowing, or wisdom, or of anything most profitable, be to retrace the steps of any process that created anything into existence?

    could anything know "no pain", without pain?

    could anything know, or have an actual point of reference in the mind, what smart was, less there was stupidity?

    can anything human mind, recognise the impact of total sum of cold without hot?

    so, both are required to create intelligence in itself?

    can anything know rich without poor?

    so, if one was not affored the opportunnity to see, or know, BOTH OF THESE, in true living reality, itself would be mo' stupid?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    11
    Marcusclayman:

    I suggest you read the book Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky. In it, the main character, Raskolnikov, is an educated man, yet driven poor in the economy of Russia. This offers a reasonable and believable way of looking at pooor people as intellectual beings. Later, however, Raskolnikov performs the blunder of murdering a pawn shop owner, in order to gain money for himself, and what he refers to as the 'greater good.'

    To elaborate on your question, I would say that perhaps not all poor people are, in fact, ignorant or naive, yet most intellegent people who are pushed under the line of 'poverty' as so dictated by society, may be pushed toward irrational actions, erring from their usual paths.

    Humans who are used to being respected as intellectual individuals, may be pushed beyond both their rational limits and their comfort zone if driven to poverty. Like Raskolnikov, many intellegent men and women may perform irrational, abnormaly idiotic things under the pressure of an alien state of being, that which is poverty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Hate my country
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    My question doesn't make sense

    Relative to what? Average intelligence

    and of course not ALL poor people are relatively stupid, but poor people as a whole, are they stupider than wealthier people as a whole?

    I'm not asking what causes poor people to tend to have lesser intelligence, but am asking whether it is true they do.

    I suppose I should just look it up for myself.
    If we would look for an average and compare those two groups - yes, it would be true. Rich people in the first place have to make/maintain the money, plus if someone's made a nice wealth in their family, chances are, the high-iq genes (simply put) will be passed to his/her son/daughter.

    Other than this logical situation, well, yes, could be, because rich people receive more nutrition, vitamins, eats better food, and probably lives in a better social situation. Also, if they are smart and rich, and want to be themselves at school, they won't have a ruined childhood, most likely. And poor people will probably be laughed at, unless they can make others not to laugh at themselves by being themselves, which is rare, at least from the smart people I know.

    Other than that... Well, rich peoples' kids have money to learn whatever they want. For example, I would like to do some robotics stuff, or learn martial arts, or have a nice programming teacher, or whatever. And if I am not rich, and I am not, I cannot get all these things, which requires money. I'm doing some of them by myself. Others - just no possibility.

    From this we can point out, that poor people are sadder, even though smart people are tend to be sad, so it's double-sad.

    So to put it simple - yes, rich peoples' average of IQ is higher than poor peoples' average of IQ.
    Sorry for my poor English skills, I've learned it by myself... Trying to improve them, feel free to criticize, hehe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    ^But that is not to imply causation
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •