Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Devlin, in the seminal work, "The Heritability of IQ" reckons it's about .50 in the general population. Most modern day textbooks and reference works tend to agree with that.


But that implies absolute equality thereafter. That is almost impossible to achieve. Therefore whilst nurture may also only be .50 it is more weighted.....if that makes sense.


Do we have any geneticists on here?


I know that counter intuitively, genetics plays a bigger part the older you are i.e. it suggests that the underlying genes actually express themselves by affecting a person's predisposition to build, learn, and develop mental abilities throughout the lifespan. Whereas at birth and early years it's all about nurture.

It is completely hereditary. I say this based on the fact that me old dad is one of those many lettered, much published, variously pee haich deed and professorred sorts. Applying this logic I have never seen the point in extending my qualifications unnecessarily instead I add his to my name on the grounds of genetics.


On the subject of hair though, the extending of the hairs on the head and the face is of course linked in various ways to increasing the individual?s powers physically, mentally and spiritually. It is for instance a well known fact, to those who know it well, that the more days growth beard you have the better you are at wizplanking.

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Also, chicks dig beards.


As Quids and I can confirm - we were out for one of the unoffical EDF summer drinks and Out of Focus seemed to have a lot of girlies wanting to chat to him.


Is that the sort of thing you meant Brendan......

How about a genetic redistribution of intelligence.


Clever parents to be taxed on their smart genes and asked to allocate them to children of parents that are more challenged. Likewise stupid genes go the other way.


I think this is a good long term solution to a fairer society.


Who could possibly object? It all for the sake of fairness.

And then they all had sex with their dogs, which is why registered breed dogs look like their owners.


(Have you noticed how Crufts winners seem to have names as ridiculous as the British upper classes? And similar problems with small gene pools.)

http://www.pubquizhelp.com/misc/past_winners_crufts.html

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • We did fine for 300 years with the Royal Mail before the current "competitive" shambles was introduced. Now we have multiple companies with multiple vehicles making deliveries to the same streets every day, none of the workers are employees with decent working conditions or any job security, and consumers have to deal with x different distribution networks and apps and platforms and drop-off points... https://postandparcel.info/12422/news/uk-royal-mails-monopoly-to-end-on-1-january-2006/
    • That's certainly the narrative that runs ad infinitum on the Forum but I wonder how true it is. Speaking for myself I'm very happy M&S, Superdrug, Pret and, in the last century, Sainsbury's arrived and judging from the business they do I'm not alone.
    • There are Christmas lights?! Or a, I missing something?
    • Though it's often the big corporates who dig deepest. For small independents that's a bigger ask, decorating, when they do their own premises is cost enough. And we're normally happy not to have the big corporates in LL. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...