How to encourage Middle Class to have more children without over encouraging the poor

You seem to struggle with inconsistency. No problem. You've admitted support for fascism. There's nothing else to say.

 

Sure sure.

Tell me how you feel about Islamic extremists.

 

No opinion on Islamic terrorism and fascism in the UK?

Cat got your tongue?

 

It would just be a slight tweak change in tax policy.

Why do you always have to judge policy based on intentions?

 

That you think a slight tweak delivers eugenics is nonsense. That you continuously refer to fascist comment is just matter of fact.

 

Look, all I'm saying is turn alimony into a regressive tax and turn child deductions into a progressive one.
Basically the reverse of the way it is right now.

 

That's more powerful than your opening post

 

Wow! A free TV you say?
Smart TV?

 

Some can adjust, others sublimate.

 

It was a big thing at that time, in Singapore in the late 80s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_planning_in_Singapore

 

Oh, CRT, no thanks, probably made in New York City..

 

I find it deeply amusing that the poster most concerned about IQ scores STILL doesn't understand -- despite having it pointed out to him -- that IQ scores are a normal distribution. So the median IQ score will ALWAYS be 100, and there will ALWAYS be the same percentage of people on either side of that.

 

I never understood why it's so hard for folks to have kids, why I certainly had to pace myself to only four(that I know of).........

 

When talking about IQ scores, we're usually talking about comparative IQ scores, either comparative to different countries or comparative to different times.

 

Actually, Singapore was a major manufacturer of color televisions at that time.

 

Well you can't compare across times, unless you're using the exact same test. If you just look at average IQ scores, the curve from both times will look exactly the same, thanks to the very definition of IQ.

You can compare across populations, but then you run into other structural problems with IQ tests, namely that they have been shown to be culturally biased, and also biased towards education levels. This becomes obvious when you look at IQ scores by country. Unless you truly believe that the average person in Equatorial Guinea has an IQ of 59 -- which rates as "mentally retarded" -- then clearly the test does not accurately measure raw intelligence across cultures. And indeed, there is now a fair bit of research showing that cognitive styles differ across cultures, and that IQ tests don't take this into account:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligence.aspx

There's evidence, for instance, that simply using pencil and paper to take the tests imposes a cultural bias (due to familiarity with the tools and convention of their use). And they also seem to be biased toward neurotypical individuals.
http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2013/09/intelligence-testing-accurate-or.html

 

I bet Islam teaches you some stuff about eugenics in the UK.

 

If you haven't developed using pencil and paper yet that is a pretty good indicator that the IQ test is right.

 

Why? Were people stupider before the invention of paper?

If you have trouble eating with chopsticks, people in Asia might think you're stupid. Are you stupid?

 

Some were, because they didn't have it when other cultures did.

I'm assuming you were talking about using pencils and paper in 2018. Is that correct?

I mean we can talk about other periods in history, but that will just make your argument look worse.

I don't have any trouble with chopsticks, having lived right outside Hiroshima for a number of years.

 

So no, the invention of paper and pencils did not automatically make people smarter.

And no, an inability to use chopsticks does not mean you are stupid.

Both are tools, and culturally defined tools at that. Proficiency with one or the other is first of all about familiarity and practice.

The study I referenced occurred in Zambia, where students are not routinely provided with pencils and paper. It used a supposedly culture-neutral IQ test that uses abstract shapes proceeding in a pattern, and asks the subject to complete the pattern.

The study found that the Zambian children performed poorly when told to draw shapes with pencil on paper, but performed much better when allowed to form the shapes out of clay or wire -- materials they were much more familiar with.

So tell me again how lack of familiarity with pencil and paper is an indication of stupidity.

 

Smart people invented pencil and paper because smart people had written languages.

People and cultures with low IQ's did not invent pencil and paper because their IQ wasn't high enough to have a written language and all that encompasses.

Zambian children performed badly because Zambian children don't go to school and have a 55% illiteracy rate. One doesn't need education tools when one doesn't live in a culture that educates.

 

Your broad and grossly incorrect stereotypes aside, the point of an IQ test is supposed to be measuring native intelligence, irrespective of culture or education. The Zambia study showed that IQ tests are culturally biased in various ways, including unexpected ones like the use of pencil and paper.

 

No I get that you're trying to make people with low intelligence look intelligent, like a participation trophy.

As I said, if your culture doesn't have written language and the tools to use it, the IQ test is right.

IQ is based on knowledge. If schools and written language are not part of one's culture, then you're not going to have much knowledge or ability to reason and think.

 

No, you are mostly displaying your ignorance about the purpose of IQ tests.

Are you saying Zambians don’t have a written language?

Again, you clearly don’t understand the concept behind IQ tests. They are NOT supposed to be based on knowledge. Tests based on knowledge measure education, not intelligence.

Really? Before there were schools and written languages, people weren’t able to reason or think? Weird. I wonder where the schools and written languages came from?