Forum: Author Hangout

Historically the time to get married was decided by when you became an adult which, for most societies was when they were able to procreate. Thus, until about 150 years ago it was 13 for females and 14 for males.

As has been indicated local custom and (separately) religion play a part.
In my lifetime, and when the republic was under the effective control of the Catholic Church, girls in Eire could legally be married at 14 with parent's consent.
That is NOT to say that any/many such marriages did occur

That has since ben changed but Eire has certain strange laws.
Although it is a quite separate nation anyone born in or of a parent from Ulster is automatically a Southern Ireland national with every benefit that entails such as a second passport, residence, work....
Worse, a resident of either the north or south is liable for tax on income but if a resident of Ulster crosses the border to work (or vice versa) for any government institution (such as a ministry, college or university) then he or she is automatically exempt for liability for such income tax in either country. (a friend used to drive 10 miles to work as a professor like that! He was liable for tax on the profits of the pub he owned in his home country)

Historically the time to get married was decided by when you became an adult which, for most societies was when they were able to procreate. Thus, until about 150 years ago it was 13 for females and 14 for males.

What is an appropriate age is a highly contentious issue, because I know people who aren't mature enough to get married at 50, and others mature enough in their mid teens.

Getting back on the initial topic, this is the most succinct answer.

The real question is which objectives you're pursuing in regards to "marriage age" and whether or not said marriage is linked to reproduction, as many marriages (today) are incapable of such.

If linked to economic considerations, then it presumably requires a means test. Can the married persons support themselves/each other financially?

If linked to reproductive concerns it becomes a range of questions.

Do they have potential (future) ability to reproduce?

Can they reproduce at present? (The "old enough to bleed" standard)

Are they able to safely reproduce without risk of self-harm? (Varies by individual, can run from early teens up to their mid-20's but is also includes never as an option, and can potentially include actively restricting certain blood types, among other things, from attempting to marry/reproduce. Which isn't to mention (certain categories of) diabetic women, and more)

Or are we concerned about other factors(potentially economic) as well?

Is one(or more) of the parties involved "being exploited" and by whom? ("May-December" relationships come to mind, where often the elder person is exploiting things, or at least accused of it. As well as the reverse when dealing with the much older) How do you determine that "exploitation" is happening?

Edit: U.S. Marriage law at this point is a collection of 1st Amendment(Religious Rights) carve-outs for "old enough to bleed" practices, while also attempting to pursue the protection against both exploitation and self-harm through pregnancy at an early age. 18 just happens to be near a sweet spot for diminishing returns on the actuary tables regarding pregnancy outcomes. That particular table doesn't exhaust itself until well into their 20's however. The exploitation angle converges on 18 because of contract law and public education(High School) concluding at that age for people to be "old enough to know better."

Another question. If the legal marriage age is 13, but the consent for sex age is 18, do a married couple have to wait 5 years to have sex (children?)

I think you'll find age-of-consent laws always (?) have an exception for married couples.

For muslims, only a country under the rule of Sharia is considered civilized.

NOT TRUE!

I live in Indonesia, a country that is over 80% Muslim, and with the largest Muslim population in the world.

A version of Sharia law exists only in a tiny (about 2% of the population) semi-autonomous region of Aceh. Everywhere else, even alcoholic drinks are sold legally.

Also, you misunderstand what Sharia law is. As far as I know there is not one country that enforces Sharia law - those that have any version of it only apply it to Muslims.

BTW, I'm not an apologist for them. As a culture I think the women and girls are generally nice, but the men and adolescent boys are overwhelmingly a bunch of selfish, arrogant arseholes.

Two males of middle eastern descent ... [fully deserved their time behind bars]

An interesting story, but every culture has quite of lot of truly obnoxious males.
This story might explain my assessment that Muslim males (in Southern Asia, at least) have a much larger percentage of common-or-garden obnoxious males than Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu societies.
I see the primary cause as what Muslim parents allow boys to get away with that they'd never accept from girls. All societies treat boys and girls differently, but I only see Muslim parents allowing vast differences between what is unacceptable for boys and girls.
I was living in next door to a family with a boy aged about 10. One night he started crying, and howling, mixed in with stream of shouted angry words directed at one, or the other, or both parents. This went on, literally, for over half an hour! Can you imagine any Western parent allowing emotional blackmail at such an extreme level from any child - and this little monster was about 10 years old!
It is true that other Asian culture give more advantages to boys than girls, but it's only the Muslims I see as permitting atrocious behaviour from boys that would be absolutely unacceptable from girls.
The consequences of that are obviously going to be as I said before, "[Muslim] men and adolescent boys are overwhelmingly a bunch of selfish, arrogant arseholes".

They also fail to realize that the original written concepts changed since the first keeper of the concepts verbally transferred the concepts to his successor.

I think also that at least two religions' Holy Books reflect in part the needs of people when they, the books, were originally created.
As an example, living in a desert without refrigeration some meats decompose and become poisonous very quickly. Imagine that a wise elder decrees that you must not eat this meat and that meat because of that danger but the reason itself is not written down.

Your family / clan is wandering from waterhole to waterhole and the menfolk want attractive women as concubines. They see some in another tribe and there is a raid - any sensible clan would keep its womenfolk out of sight and well covered so their beauty cannot be seen. Society has changed but such advice/instructions in the Holy Books remain

What was the life expectancy then? 40s?

At birth, yes. Roughly speaking, life expectancy increased from about 40 to 50 during the second half of the 19th century.

However, if once children reached the age of 10, their like expectancy was about another 50 years, and that increased by less than 3 years over the same period.

The social change I see as having necessitated increases in the minimum ages of marriage and consent is the introduction of universal education until the mid-teens.

Many countries now ban child labour

Contrary to popular belief, ban's on child labor were not passed to protect the rights of children, but to increase union wages and protect union workers from competition by artificially shrinking the labor force.

If protecting the rights of children was the primary purpose, there would have been little to no reason to exclude family run businesses from the child labor bans.

awnlee jawking wrote

Many countries now ban child labour

Not sure what the rules are here. I do know from my children's experience that a lot of employers use a minimum of 14 AND require a note from the parents and school.
In one case he was working in a greengrocers (not sure of US word - a private shop selling vegetables) and was required to use a heavy knife to remove extra leaves etc. Potentially dangerous but he was sensible and well aware.
I have seen packs of much younger kids delivering advertising literature to letterboxes but with an adult in sight and I do wonder about the age of the boy who delivers our local paper

the age of the boy who delivers our local paper

My first 'real' job was delivering newspapers. I started when I was 12. Up every morning at 5 and on my bicycle route.

Not sure what the rules are here. I do know from my children's experience that a lot of employers use a minimum of 14 AND require a note from the parents and school.

In the US, a family owned/operated business, be it a service business, a farm, a retail business, or a manufacturing business, can employ their own children (but not other people's children) with total exemption from child labor laws, no age minimum, no hours limits, and no minimum wage.

a greengrocers (not sure of US word - a private shop selling vegetables)

I don't think there is an equivalent word in the US, in fact, I don't think there is an equivalent thing in the US (or at least not in the upper Midwest).

We have small, independent family owned grocers, but while brand selection is generally limited, I've never seen one that exclusively sold produce.

The closest equivalent in the US would be a farmer's market, where one or more farmers sell produce directly to consumers.

I've seen Produce Market

Where? Like I said, outside of farmer's markets I've seen nothing like that in my region (upper Midwest)

About a mile south of my house.

Ha, ha, ha. That might tell me something useful if I knew where your house was.

if I knew where your house was

That's easy! It's about a mile north of where 'John's Produce Mart' used to be.

one that exclusively sold produce

I lived in (just outside) Brooklyn Heights in the mid and late 1970s. The major shopping street had a number of independent retailers including a greengrocer, and that is what it was called. There was a bakery, a hardware store, a butcher shop and other specialized shops, this was before Supermarkets and other all-lines stores took over the world. I don't know if they still exist. When they were there they were the ground floor of multi-story residential buildings that fit the neighborhood. To have a Wal-mart Store or Safeway several buildings would have had to be torn down and larger area stores built. Or shoppers could travel deeper into Brooklyn where land was cheaper and larger alternatives were available. Most travel was on foot, by bus or subway and carrying a lot of packages or grocery bags would have been difficult. We shopped for food for a day or two and didn't carry a lot home.

I lived in (just outside) Brooklyn Heights in the mid and late 1970s. The major shopping street had a number of independent retailers including a greengrocer, and that is what it was called. There was a bakery, a hardware store, a butcher shop and other specialized shops, this was before Supermarkets and other all-lines stores took over the world. I don't know if they still exist.

I was born in 1969 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Wisconsin had supermarkets in the 1970s, and while specialty bakery a butcher shops were around, there were no greengrocers that I am aware of.

The first true supermarket (by modern standards) was opened in 1930 and the roots of the idea likely go back to the rural general stores of the west and midwest which go all the way back to the 19th centruy.

The first true supermarket (by modern standards) was opened in 1930

So, please tell us. WHat was the first true supermarket and where was it? And "by modern standards" implies there were older standards. When was the change?

Contrary to popular belief, ban's on child labor were not passed to protect the rights of children, but to increase union wages and protect union workers from competition by artificially shrinking the labor force.

I was not alive at the time the first federal law was passed (I think 1914) so I really have no first-hand knowledge. But what I've read about it is that it was pressed by an organization led by clergymen and college presidents - not labor unions. Unless you personally have first-had knowledge, I'd be curious to know the basis of your assertion.
Cheers

I was not alive at the time the first federal law was passed (I think 1914) so I really have no first-hand knowledge.

The US Congress enacted child labor bans in 1918 and 1922, both were overturned by the courts as unconstitutional.

The first successful national child labor laws were part of the Fair Labor Standards Act passed in 1938

https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/history-child-labor/

The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, in addition to restricting child labor, enacted for adult workers, the 8 hour work day and 40 hour work week with time reporting and time and a half overtime pay requirements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act_of_1938

Contrary to popular belief, ban's on child labor were not passed to protect the rights of children, but to increase union wages and protect union workers from competition by artificially shrinking the labor force.

If protecting the rights of children was the primary purpose, there would have been little to no reason to exclude family run businesses from the child labor bans.

The "family business" exemption was almost entirely due to the agricultural sector. Farmers remain a very powerful national lobby even today, and 80 years ago they comprised a significantly larger portion of the population.

Yes, some of those child labor laws were "self-interest" cases, in pursuit of shrinking the labor pool. But some of it also was because some employers were placing children in highly dangerous situations on a regular basis. Often because the small child could reach things the adults couldn't. But the "Think of the Children!" campaign didn't have to try very hard to produce stories of children becoming permanently crippled or maimed from industrial workplace accidents.

Needless to say, such operations today would be shutdown by OSHA long before CPS would need to become involved, but CPS wasn't concerned about "protection" 100 years ago.

What was the life expectancy then? 40s?

Even when the U.S. social security was created for people 65 years old they didn't expect to pay out more than a few years.

Going to reiterate what was already mentioned. That very low life expectancy number is misleading in the extreme. I had ancestors regularly making it into their 70's and 80's prior to the 20th century. I also know I'm not terribly unique in this.

What "murdered" that life expectancy number was infant and childhood mortality rates. Immunization and better sanitation practices helped with boosting life expectancy considerably because it eliminated a lot of those "premature death" outcomes. After communicable diseases, the next leading historical killers were accidents(or acts of war) usually related to work carried out by men, a standard that continues to this day, although it no longer heads the list thanks to things like OSHA and better medical techniques and technologies as related to trauma care.

But you're also generally correct in that they expected many people to be dead before they ever drew a SS check. They also expected the population pyramid would continue much as it had for centuries previous. They were wrong on both counts.

Going to reiterate what was already mentioned. That very low life expectancy number is misleading in the extreme. I had ancestors regularly making it into their 70's and 80's prior to the 20th century. I also know I'm not terribly unique in this.

As someone mentioned, it seemed normal and expected for a man to die within six months of retirement - ie before he was 66. In my case so far as I can establish both my parents died in their early 50's after illness, my adopted mother No 1

I don't know - I have incomplete legal documents, adopted mother no 2 at about 56 (DVT) and her sister even younger.

Ross at Play clarified in respect of poverty:

I used the term "EXTREME" only about the seven countries in the world with the highest birthrates.

OK but what about the banks of the Lagan in the 1940's to early 1950's? It was not just overseas countries

Another element is access to proper and complete medical treatment. The problems of many people in the USA are well known but even here treatment is patchy. Even 10 years after it was available penicillin was unknown in some more civilised parts of England

Even 10 years after it was available penicillin was unknown in some more civilised parts of England

There is one fact about life expectancy in the days before penicillin that few people recognise. Yes, average life expectancy was only in the forties in the wealthiest of countries, but once I child made it to the age of ten their life expectancy was then closer to 60!

That could be down to the way we select doctors. They're the ultimate rote learners, therefore they're very conservative and resistant to changes. Even today, some UK GPs are still prescribing antacids etc for stomach ulcers rather than antibiotics :(

Perhaps but...
medical advances even during the second half of my lifetime have come staggeringly fast. So fast that I suspect that non-specialist doctors cannot keep up.

Something I alluded to before; I had an injury and the doctor used every treatment he knew but amputation became the only answer. By chance he had heard of some new-fangled old treatment and wrote away for what turned out to be gauze which saved my leg.
Later I went into hospital for tests - they had my entire life's file but could not find out what was wrong. Two weeks later, at 1300m, a young student who knew nothing of my past noticed the symptoms and said "you have had {name of disease}"
The wife of a work colleague had a baby but went downhill so fast that he expected her to die in 12 hours - a medical student walked by and asked if she had been tested for ..... - she left hospital well but must avoid wheat for life.

My consultant moved and his replacement changed my treatment - after 15 years I am better now than I was shortly after I became affected but can I blame Dr Y? At least he did HIS best.

They CAN'T know everything so proper treatment can be a matter of luck.

The only solution I can see is to admit that the 'walking medical encyclopaedia' approach is now broken, and the medic at the sharp end needs to use intelligent computer diagnostic tools. A recent study found that specialist computer applications give significantly more accurate diagnoses than the traditional ten minute GP interview.

Perhaps but it still needs competent trained people to administer any such system.. we have a telephone enquiry service; ring up and describe your problem and their computer tells them what question to ask ad infinitum.
Presumably the system was designed by well qualified medical personnel but it is subject to giving answers unusual for the situation.
It has almost become a laughing stock. The best tool of a doctor is his/her "bedside manner" - his / her confidence, even bovine effluence, ability to talk with and not at a patient but computer operators don't get that training.

I once had a pretty good GP who reckoned he found a sense of smell essential for diagnosis!

single out another culture as having barbaric customs

Where did "barbaric" come from?

barbaric

"The term originates from the Greek: βάρβαρος (barbaros pl. βάρβαροι barbaroi), which in turn originates from the incomprehensible languages of early Anatolian nations that were heard by the Greeks as "bar..bar.." In Ancient Greece, the Greeks used the term towards those who didn't speak Greek and follow classical Greek customs."

In Ancient Greece, the Greeks used the term towards those who didn't speak Greek and follow classical Greek customs."

In other words, by those standards we are all barbarians...

Where did "barbaric" come from?

The tone of the OP seemed deliberately provocative to me. That is how I interpreted its intended inference.
I didn't bother viewing the link provided. I've lived in predominantly Muslim societies for 8 years. I don't need to be told about their marriage customs.

ETA: I went back and looked at the link. It was a newspaper article about a law being proposed that would raise the minimum age for marriage in New Hampshire to 16, from the current ages of 13 for girls and 14 for boys.
With respect to you, Zom, I think there are more relevant questions you could have asked. In particular, asking the OP:
Where did "Muslim" come from?
Where did "highly reproducing" come from?

I was contrasting from personal experience.

I cannot be certain about your intentions, but your comments are so unrelated to the link you provided I'm always going to think your intention was to be offensive.

Are you a muslim

No, I am not a Muslim. I stated this above:

BTW, I'm not an apologist for them. As a culture I think the women and girls are generally nice, but the men and adolescent boys are overwhelmingly a bunch of selfish, arrogant arseholes.

men and adolescent boys are overwhelmingly a bunch of selfish, arrogant arseholes.

I certainly don't have a problem with that! Just like "we" were 400 years ago :-)

where do you stand on the subject.

Dave, in this forum, nobody stays on the subject! I'm amazed that the discussion has not yet evolved to criticism of the scoring system; eventually, it will get there.

With respect to you, Zom, I think there are more relevant questions you could have asked.

I understood the intents there. It's clear to me why 'Muslim' would be used, and also why 'highly reproducing' would be used. Both seem accurate to me, but I couldn't see how the OP subject could be termed barbaric, hence my question. After all, he was soliciting opinions, not screaming from a soapbox.

It's clear to me why 'Muslim' would be used, and also why 'highly reproducing' would be used. Both seem accurate to me

I do not wish to argue with you, but it is dead wrong!

The vast majority of 'highly reproducing' countries in the world are very strongly Christian, and in sub-Saharan Africa.
There is enormous variation in birth rates in the Muslim region across Northern Africa and into Central Asia - and it's pretty much directly correlated to countries' incomes.

The phenomenon of birth rates falling as economic security increases is common to all religions.

Map of birth rates by country
Map of percentage Muslim by country
Map of percentage Christian by country

That isn't what your maps seem to show. The vast majority of the highest reproducing countries (the red ones) are moslem.

NOPE!
I included the orange ones in highly, as opposed to highest, reproducing ones. Most of those, ones I identified as being in sub-Saharan Africa, are strongly Christian.

And ... as far as I can tell, the red ones only split 4/3 for strongly Muslim/Christian. It appears to me that the Muslim ones are Somalia, Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso; while the Christian ones are Uganda, Zambia, and Malawi.

I said, "Birth rates [are] pretty much directly correlated to countries' incomes." The thing those countries have in common is EXTREME POVERTY, not religion. Look where they are one these lists of Per Capita GDP. Here's a hint: start at the bottom.

I said, "Birth rates [are] pretty much directly correlated to countries' incomes." The thing those countries have in common is EXTREME POVERTY, not religion

I don't think that EXTREME poverty is the only answer.

I suggest that at least until education, health care etc will reach all, health (including using children in the fields)played a part. It is said that in India the family would have multiple children because of the risk of death from disease and the demand for a son to survive to continue the family line.
I am Caucasian but one of my ancestors (who was not RC)had 15 children of who three reached majority; in some cases it was clearly disease.

Then again there was the influence of RC priests - there were (are) countries which ban contraception and abortion.

Then there is the question of what to do after nightfall if you have no money. The rapid spread of AIDS in Southern Africa demonstrated the culture of men impregnating any or every woman who would go with him.

I don't think that EXTREME poverty is the only answer.
I suggest that at least until education, health care etc will reach all, health (including using children in the fields) played a part.

To clarify what I said, I used the term "EXTREME" only about the seven countries in the world with the highest birthrates.

I suggest we both understand that Malthus got it totally wrong. We will not totally overrun the planet any time soon because a trend, on a continuum, for birthrates to decline as incomes increase - because parents realise that better health care, etc. means not as many children are needed to feel confident at least some will survive to take care of them in their old age.

The vast majority of 'highly reproducing' countries in the world are very strongly Christian, and in sub-Saharan Africa.

That surprised me, so I checked your data, and from your first reference, of the countries in maroon (highest birth rates) all but two (Uganda and Zambia) are very strongly majority Islam. So I'm not sure where your assertion comes from.

We could also get into a discussion about the difference between birth rate and reproduction. Successful reproduction (Darwinian) is where the offspring survive long enough to reproduce themselves.

the countries in maroon (highest birth rates) all but two (Uganda and Zambia) are very strongly majority Islam. So I'm not sure where your assertion comes from.

From what I can of the countries in maroon, Uganda, Zambia, and Malawi (East of Zambia) are strongly Christian. The strongly Muslim countries are Somalia, Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso. Four to three hardly matters.
I was including all of the countries in orange. That block of countries in the southern half of Africa are all strongly Christian with a band just of the equator where the transition to mostly Muslim takes place.

I was not asserting that high birthrates are a particularly Christian phenomenon. I was providing evidence there isn't much difference between the predominately Muslim and Christian regions of sub-Saharan Africa. I think the main driving force for high birthrates is low national incomes. You might note how birthrates fall in the marginally richer countries along both the northern coast and southern tip of Africa.

The vast majority of 'highly reproducing' countries in the world are very strongly Christian, and in sub-Saharan Africa.

Generally speaking, the strongest correlation between fertility(reproduction) rates and anything else is in relation to income and education, as has been indirectly brought up already.

The lower the education level, the lower the household income, and that typically translates into larger families. Although there is an "urban" factor now presenting itself in that data now as well.

Urban poor don't seem to be popping kids out by the dozens any more, even accounting for education, that seems to be the purview of the "rural poor" or formerly rural types. I guess the rural/urban split may be a demonstration of the impact of access to birth control and/or Abortion services rather than other factors, but that is for others to investigate.

Which isn't to say there aren't outliers out there. While the income/education measure even holds in 1st world nations, there are always exceptions. Such as the Mormons, which would be a clear example of the difference being religious/cultural in nature. Of course, the Mormons also have tended towards more rural areas even if they tend to be well educated and see a corresponding pay scale as such.

@Ross at Play
The vast majority of 'highly reproducing' countries in the world are very strongly Christian, and in sub-Saharan Africa.

@ You
Generally speaking, the strongest correlation between fertility(reproduction) rates and anything else is in relation to income and education

Our opinions on this issue are almost identical.

I wish you had extended your quote of my words further - to put them into their true context context. A representative quote would have been:

The vast majority of 'highly reproducing' countries in the world are very strongly Christian, and in sub-Saharan Africa.
There is enormous variation in birth rates in the Muslim region across Northern Africa and into Central Asia - and it's pretty much directly correlated to countries' incomes.
The phenomenon of birth rates falling as economic security increases is common to all religions.

Normally, selective quoting here does not matter much. In this case, it does - because we seem to be among the few here who've been able to see the word 'Muslim' and NOT instantly descended into religious diatribes.

I accept the additional points you have made that education level and urban/rural are driving factors for high birthrates as well as income. Those factors are quite strongly correlated to incomes.

May we say the only differences in our opinions are nuances. I view incomes as the "chicken" and education and urban/rural as the "eggs". I'm not going to argue with you if you label those a bit differently. :-)

So, I forgive you for what I consider an unfortunate choice of which words to quote, and actually want to thank you for contributing some rational and objective facts to this thread. THANKS for that!

Yesterday, I was getting very pissed off about things being said here. I drafted something intended to turn this thread into a nuclear war zone. Fortunately, doing that was enough to "get it out of my system". From now on, my posts here will be "JUST THE FACTS". I'm currently preparing a detailed analysis that will do that.

Perhaps you will be capable of seeing the amusing side of what I would consider an insight I had yesterday:

Muslims are the "new wife-beaters": anyone who fails to be critical in every statement about them is presumed to be an apologist for monsters.

Thank you for making the start of my new year a bit happier than the end of the old one.

May we say the only differences in our opinions are nuances. I view incomes as the "chicken" and education and urban/rural as the "eggs". I'm not going to argue with you if you label those a bit differently. :-)

My main issue was nuance, as the birth rate issue, such as it is, "doesn't track" as a religious issue. So the fixation on Christian vs Muslim fertility rates was a poor choice in my view. As those fertility rates tend to track with income and education.

Although there does seem to be an anomaly in the U.S. in regards to the higher income brackets. Probably due to the trophy wife w/kids things, for which President Trump is an example. He has what? 4 children across 3 wives? And IIRC, at least one ex has children by other men as well, so replacement level was exceeded in his specific case even if any individual mother didn't do so because the father was the same across multiple women.

But that just opens doors to sci/tech/ethics/polysci discussions about encouraging a disproportionately female population and more polyamorus "family groupings" to ensure sustained populations in a nation/world looking at a potential long term population decline. Basically "restructure" so a female fertility rate slightly above 1 becomes viable rather than the ~2.1 children per couple needed presently.

Edit: Although as a guy, I'm not so sure I'd want to be in a society where it became 3F:1M or more pronounced. It might sound great in theory, until you realize that you're part of a very definite minority. But even at that ratio, with 10 couples needing to currently average about 21 babies between them, eliminating 2 out of every 3 males from that mix still means for a group of 9 women and 3 men, roughly 13 babies would be needed between them(instead of nearly 20) to maintain the population. Meaning 4 of those 9 women would still need to give birth twice(excepting multiple births, obviously).

It may sound great in theory, but it's a recipe for a very unstable society. Despite all the advancements in our civilization, our instincts are still those that guided our evolution.

Each man won't be happy if he doesn't get access to at least a woman and a chance at having a progeny, even just one child. A man marrying or simply having children with multiple women, means that many men won't have that chance. If polygyny is widely practiced, that leaves large swathes of young men without access to fertile women. Any society with a large number of discontented/hopeless young men is an unstable one at best.

You missed part of the implied premise with regards to "engineered" society shifts. It is possible, even now, for gender selection to be done for children. China's one child policy resulting in a heavy skew favoring males(unintentionally) is one such example, only I was suggesting the opposite. "Incentivizing" people to instead bias heavily in favor of parenting daughters rather than sons, sufficient to result in something like a 3F:1M ratio in the gender balance.

On a biotech angle, it is possible(probable may differ) that some scientists could either alter the genome sufficiently to make the imbalance permanent for those family lines, or otherwise develop other more passive means to make thing more hostile to the "Y" sperm specifically.

This also completely ignored the "test-tube babies" where everything could be preselected prior to implantation in the mother's womb.

So when I was talking about 3F:1M I quite literally meant there were 3 women for every man. Not what you ran off into where legions of men were left womanless because other guys are collecting 3 women each. Which is why I said I wouldn't necessarily want to live in that world, where men comprise only 1/4 of the population base... And aren't that particular vital for more than genetic diversity, which presents only limited utility on its own.

Edit: That also ignores the matter of the "replacement level" numbers I used as an arbitrary example. I discussed 9 women, and 3 men having 13 children for a "sustained" population. That example fails utterly if it results in 6 men out of 9 never having children, as that would mean a population decline rather than a stable one.

It is interesting to hear somebody talk from a feminist fantasy point of view. Only feminists think that a world without men would actually function.

The world we live in was built by men, not women. Women contributed, but their contributions were minimal.

.....

I'm far from being any kind "feminist" worthy of the label. I find most of their "gender studies" stuff laughable and poorly conceived. I also tend to think they're overly prone towards blaming men for social behaviors that are actually perpetuated by and at the behest of women.

But I think you might have lost sight of the ballpark, nevermind getting lost out on either left of right field.

The many women to few men ratio is one many MEN fantasize about, because at first glimpse it means women should be fighting over them... Because well, they're still assuming either attempts at monogamy(not in that setting), or "Happy Harem Time" with them("the man") in charge.

You can find many SOL stories that to down that kind of road. Reality is likely to be much different.

As to the failure of matriarchal societies, or rather, the lack of them in general. That's another matter, there are obvious reasons why a female dominant society would have difficulties in less advanced eras. As raw physical strength typically outmatched everything else, which is a department women generally have a hard time competing against.

Which plays back to "men achieved ____" from you. I'll openly agree in part. But as Archimedes said about levers, I think you might find that many of those great achievements may have had more feminine origins than history is able to discern. They just had to work through others to make it happen. But hey, we recognize Egyptian Pharaohs for constructions designed by others and built by slaves, so whatever.

IQ tests are a measurement of a person's ability to learn.

And here I was, thinking it was a measure of a person's ability to reason :-)

I remember a case of a prisoner on Death Row. He was spared execution because of his low intelligence, that of a child. He studied the law and eventually became proficient enough (law degree?) to launch an appeal, thereby rendering him eligible for execution.

Sigh ... I really shouldn't but I feel I have to point it out before someone else does. What has a law degree to do with intelligence?

I have believed for years that the intelligence levels varied depending on what was being tested for. I consider some mechanics geniuses while in that regard I would be a moron or worse intelligence wise. And that is just one example there are other areas as well like cooking or woodworking among others. Those don't seem to appear on any intelligence test however.

I have believed for years that the intelligence levels varied depending on what was being tested for. I consider some mechanics geniuses while in that regard I would be a moron or worse intelligence wise. And that is just one example there are other areas as well like cooking or woodworking among others. Those don't seem to appear on any intelligence test however.

This is my general take as well. Things that often make people absolutely amazing in certain fields often tends to in turn make them horrible at other pursuits.

It isn't just because of the "amount of study" involved that we have developed specializations.

The absent minded(/insane) professor/scientist stereotype exists for a reason beyond it simply being fodder for horror stories and comedies.

Yes there are plenty of "normal" people in those fields, but they're not typically the ones found breaking new ground well ahead of everyone else. (Unless they're being funded up the ____)

(Unless they're being funded up the ____)

the answer to this fill-in-the blank question is: yazoo.

At least with a law degree (or equivalent), you can understand the IQ test questions, giving you a fighting chance of answering them.

I just wanted to quickly get over the unavoidable joke.

I think I made the point in a previous discussion on the subject that the freakishly intelligent often do poorly on IQ tests because they're smarter than the setters. I'm not convinced IQ tests are that good a measure of intelligence, they're more a test of conformity.

I would generally agree in regards to poorly structured questions. Which newer (high quality) tests try to avoid. The high IQ person is more likely to work themselves into an "interpretation" issue where they can argue for multiple differing answers to a single question. But for the person scoring the thing, that ability may not matter, only arriving at the "correct" answer does.

Likewise, due to getting (frequently) caught in such cases, having to stop and discern which answer is desired in turn slows them down, and as speed is often also one of the scoring criteria...

Nope. An average ability to learn defines the rate at which someone can learn. It does not place a limit on what or how much can be learned.

True but irrelevant; (s)he can learn the stuff by root, but this knowledge doesn't imply comprehension of the learned.

That's fine for lawers, but not for chemists or engineers.

I once met such a person, about 40 years ago. She was an apprentice and could cite all when asked, but she was unable to apply the knowledge to her daily work. She got the highest grades in vocational school and went to study business management. My boss was happy, because he hadn't to tell her we wouldn't offer her a job.

HM.

FYI, from OxD:

rote
noun [uncountable] (often used as an adjective)
the process of learning something by repeating it until you remember it rather than by understanding the meaning of it
e.g. to learn by rote; rote learning

The pronunciation is identical to wrote.

True but irrelevant; (s)he can learn the stuff by root, but this knowledge doesn't imply comprehension of the learned.

That's fine for lawers, but not for chemists or engineers.

I once met such a person, about 40 years ago. She was an apprentice and could cite all when asked, but she was unable to apply the knowledge to her daily work. She got the highest grades in vocational school and went to study business management. My boss was happy, because he hadn't to tell her we wouldn't offer her a job.

The former is usually a failing of the instructor, although I will acknowledge there are instances where certain people will be hopeless in regards to certain types of tasks and no amount of remediation will help them.

That said, the more typical experience is that the person themselves has set themselves up for failure. As they enter into those instructional environments convinced they cannot perform well in that particular task.

The bigger irony is the truly hopeless cases tend to be the ones who won't give up, while everyone else quits too soon.

The highly intelligent are prone to leaping things forward in the right circumstances. Most of them don't really accomplish much however. Meanwhile, those closer to the average side of things will typically poor along and ultimately be the ones to refine and expand upon the previous leap forward, through a simply massive number of iterations... Until the next leap forward.

High IQ is the hare, Average IQ is the tortoise. They both come with their own sets of advantages and drawbacks.

Edit: And as to the latter, I know of more than few people who are in that camp. And strangely, IQ tests tend to like them a lot.

High IQ is the hare, Average IQ is the tortoise. They both come with their own sets of advantages and drawbacks.

LOL, and insightful too, I think.

I cannot explain, but I think almost identical conclusions could be drawn about the consequences of females using both sides of their brains as a unit, while males use one side at a time - except that IQ tests don't pick up the advantages females bring to finding solutions for problems.

IQ tests suggest the extremely intelligent are almost exclusively males. I think that's complete crap.

IQ tests suggest the extremely intelligent are almost exclusively males. I think that's complete crap.

This statement may save you from sleeping on the couch.

I once met such a person, about 40 years ago. She was an apprentice and could cite all when asked, but she was unable to apply the knowledge to her daily work

I had one of those when I first worked abroad. Both of us had the same professional qualifications but he, a local, was three levels above me. One day he asked me how he should handle a problem (clearly having no idea) so I simply asked him "if that was in your AIB exam how would you answer?" He quoted "the book" so I then asked him "is there any reason why you shouldn't do that here?" He simply couldn't understand that book learning can relate to everyday life

It doesn't matter how much you know.

I don't think that's accurate.
You need a knowledge base sufficient to understand the questions.

In an IQ test you have to figure things out. They don't ask you knowledge questions about things you can memorize.

I think that is accurate.

why they asked about the gender

In parts of the USA that is a tough question, worthy of being on an IQ test. GLBT... Like most IQ tests this one didn't offer all the options. Your choices were XX or XY, but nature and nurture offer other combinations, actual or assumed.

The very first question tests your learned knowledge:

1. Which one of the five is least like the other four?
Dog Mouse Lion Snake Elephant

You either have to know these are four mammals and one reptile,
or
you must have seen at least pictures – better a video clip – of all five to know four have legs, one has no legs.

The question is biased, "least like" is an opinion.
Using mammal or legs as main criterion will get the same answer: 'snake'
but using size or weight as the main criterion will give you 'elephant' – or 'mouse' if it's a large snake – as result.
To answer the question you would have to check further criteria to see if they produce a single result, e.g. fur, where snake and elephant would be on one side (no fur) and dog, mouse and lion on the other side (fur).

IMO a fast answer to this first question indicates a medium IQ.
I didn't look for the next questions, one crap question was enough to stop me.

HM.

The question is biased, "least like" is an opinion.

Using mammal or legs as main criterion will get the same answer: 'snake'

but using size or weight as the main criterion will give you 'elephant' – or 'mouse' if it's a large snake – as result.

To answer the question you would have to check further criteria to see if they produce a single result, e.g. fur, where snake and elephant would be on one side (no fur) and dog, mouse and lion on the other side (fur).

IMO a fast answer to this first question indicates a medium IQ.

Or someone who is highly experienced at "test taking" and is applying said strategy there. But yes, that would be an example as I cited previously where the "truly intelligent" could convince themselves that a different solution is available than the obvious one. Which can translate into their stopping/slowing down significantly to spend some quality time working out what the test was looking for. (Which, based on IQ Tests also being speed tests, means their score will drop as a result of being "smarter than the test writers" as it relates to that question)

Edit: Although for elephants, while they may not have fur, they do have hair, just not much of it. Of course, there is the whole herbivore/omnivore/carnivore thing as well...

Although for elephants, while they may not have fur, they do have hair, just not much of it. Of course, there is the whole herbivore/omnivore/carnivore thing as well...

Not to forget life expectancy,...

To really answer this stupid question 1, you have to come up with a long list of criteria, check for each criterion if the animal belongs to the minority, note this fact and then add-up how often each animal was with the minority.
The animal with the highest minority value is the answer to question 1.
Too bad that while you tried to come-up with a well-founded answer to question 1 you ran out of time for the whole test and achieved the lowest possible IQ.

HM.

Not to forget life expectancy,...

To really answer this stupid question 1, you have to come up with a long list of criteria, check for each criterion if the animal belongs to the minority, note this fact and then add-up how often each animal was with the minority.
The animal with the highest minority value is the answer to question 1.
Too bad that while you tried to come-up with a well-founded answer to question 1 you ran out of time for the whole test and achieved the lowest possible IQ.

I would have personally applied KISS to it before then and gone for the simple answer myself. But it would have hung me up for a few moments while I considered what it was they were most likely to be comparing against. Which to me means "general knowledge" in that case that most people can be "reasonably" expected to know. So the mammal/reptile axis makes the most sense. But that also is previous coaching on test taking speaking as well.

Always great fun when the biggest time sink in a question is "what did they mean to ask by this?" Rather than the technical merits of the question itself.

The answer is obviously lion because it's the only one where a quick glimpse is enough to reveal the animal's gender :)

What about the trans lions?

The answer is obviously lion because it's the only one where a quick glimpse is enough to reveal the animal's gender

Not if the lion has been neutered. A neutered male lion will lose his mane.

Okay, you win. It's obviously the snake. It's the only one I haven't made into a cartoon hero.

Walt Disney

Kaa is a heroine!

Not so fast! It's obviously the mouse. It's the only one We didn't make into a cartoon character in the Bible.

The Pope

Part of 'g' is finding the right criteria quickly. Remember the old KISS adage? Keep is simple stupid?

I'm more partial to "It's not rocket science." Or for the Navy types, "Don't nuke it out. "

What you seem to be missing in all of that however is those expressions cut two ways, and you're ignoring the second one.

Yes, even people of average of lower intelligence can make things, or perceive something they know nothing of, "needlessly complex" compared to what they actually are. The thing there however, is that normally comes from lack of knowledge and reluctance to pursue it. "I've heard it's really hard."

The "other side" however, is the tendency of intelligent people, who often are approaching the problem from a position of knowledge. To make the solution to the problem at hand far more complex/elaborate than it needs to be.

The Navy Nuclear programs emphasis on safety potentially taking it to the extreme where graduates may approach "build a footbridge to cross a river" turns into constructing a bridge that you could drive an armored tank across. Yes, they met the initial criteria, but they went into outright overkill, and intelligent people tend to do that kind of thing more than they may care to admit, just normally not to such a hyperbolic extreme.

Which actually brings ballistic trajectories to mind, and well, actual rocket science among other things. Most IQ tests will measure time between point A to point B. They take little to no accounting for distance traveled or route taken(or reasons why). They just assume that an intelligent person will "naturally know" the correct path, and will make the best possible speed to get there. But you're going to have outliers that won't do that, for whatever their reasons. Often it will likely indicate lack of understanding/comprehension(indicating lower intelligence), but sometimes it's going to indicate a more extreme (high) intelligence outcome instead.

Any IQ Test that focuses on the end result, and ignores "the process" used by the person tested, is going to fall short of its objective more often than not. And most tests will ignore that factor, because there is no way to standardize scoring around such things, as they can also tend to be highly subjective in other ways. (What works for one person, or one situation, may be a complete train wreck in another)

online IQ test are all crap as IQ tests need to be standardized in order to compare people correctly.

Standardized? By whom?

BTW, the last IQ test I took got me 159, that was about 15 years ago.

HM.

the last IQ test I took ...

My guess is the average of the last IQ test people took would be much higher than 100.

IQ variability and men's systemizing ability vs women's empathizing ability.

There's an exception to the rule who basically proves your points: Judit Polgár, the now-retired but once very highly ranked chess player.
There is absolutely nothing in the game of chess that inhibits women from reaching the highest levels of competitive success: everything exists on a board that both players can see. The ranking system at world-class levels is also totally open, fair and objective.
Judit Polgár's peak world rating was #8. AFAIK, no other woman has ever made it into the top 50.

Still, if I ruled the world, my first decree would be that every Parliament, etc. in the world must have a minimum quota of 40% for both men and women.

ETA: I have decided to scrap my 40% quotas for Parliaments and replace it with 50% of all seats have female-only candidates and female-only voters, and the other 50% are male-only.

Thousands of years of socialization might play a part in it, don't you think? We are products of socialization; men and women take on the roles our society expects them to take. You (not only you, Bruce, of course) look at effects and declare them to be a cause.

Would you identify which comments in which of my lengthy recent posts you are commenting on.

Chances are I'll be willing to confess to "looking at effects and declaring them to be a cause".

BTW, you do know 'Bruce' is not one of my names, don't you? The joke, sans smiley, when I first used it was referring back a very famous skit by Monty Python.
But, I'm unlikely to object if you continue using the Aussie slang pejorative of calling me "a Bruce". I'm often willing to confess to that too.

Would you identify which comments in which of my lengthy recent posts you are commenting on.

Primarily I commented on your 'chess ranking-list proof', but during this discussion, there were many similar arguments - not made by you - which I view equally.

Does our society expect young girls to play chess? How many young girls play chess compared to boys? How would the ranking-list look like if a Barbie doll would represent the queen and the game would be called 'Prom'?

That aside, I'd be happy to call you not just 'a Bruce' but 'The Bruce', if you like. It's not meant to be offensive, I like Monty Python very much as well.

I'd be happy to call you not just 'a Bruce' but 'The Bruce'

You are too kind.

It's not meant to be offensive

I'd be happy for you to continue calling me either 'a Bruce' or 'The Bruce', but please reserve it for those times when you want to insult me. :-)

I commented on your 'chess ranking-list proof'

There a many things I'd attribute to socialisation, but I do consider the chess ranking-list proof entirely a consequence of genetics. If the best thousand chess players of all time included only 10% females, I would say that is quite probably due to socialisation. But as it is. in fact, only 0.1% I say that is definitely entirely genetic. And, BTW, the vast majority of that thousand would be so socially inept you'd never want them as a friend.

I don't think IQ tests measure "intelligence", per se, but they are a reasonable approximation. Friar Dave's comment that the spread for males is much flatter is correct, and I think that's genetic. Thus, I think the fact that a large majority of major discoveries are made by males I attribute to genetics: the "freaks", good and bad, of are species are mostly males.

OTOH, most of the differences I see within the middle 98% of our species I would put down to socialisation. The most obvious examples are the continued existence of glass ceilings in most areas of our society. To some extent, they may be less real than they appear??? Quite a lot of talented women just give up the fight against men's "system". They make the rational choice that their lives are too important to struggle against men according to men's rules, for example, choosing to give up careers as business executives to achieve a more satisfying life as small-business entrepreneurs. Such things are a loss to the society as a whole, but a benefit to them personally.

I view any form of gender bias the same as racial biases; positive or negative, they further no useful purpose. I don't care whether you think you can 'scientifically proof' your bias. Even if you could, it still wouldn't serve any useful purpose. I don't interact with races or genders, only people. What would it help to know that the average man is 5 points higher on an IQ scale than the average woman? Or maybe it's the other way around?

I don't disagree with you: biases of all kinds are almost always detrimental to society as a whole.
I would not classify my recognition that differences exist as being any kind of bias.

Talking about biases:
How many of Germany's elementary school teachers are female? (last number I read was more than 80%)
How many of these female teachers are biased against science and technology? (up to outright technophobe?)
How affect the biases of the teachers the students? (male and female?)

HM.

Talking about biases:
How many of Germany's elementary school teachers are female? (last number I read was more than 80%)
How many of these female teachers are biased against science and technology? (up to outright technophobe?)
How affect the biases of the teachers the students? (male and female?)

I bet those evil women are also men-hating, feminists and belong to a socialist party.

I bet those evil women are also men-hating, feminists and belong to a socialist party.

My guess is feng shui combined with vegan but gluten-free. :)

HM.

I'd be happy to call you not just 'a Bruce' but 'The Bruce'

Either is okay with me. I don't expect you to be recklessly unkind, but just in case, I'll warn about one thing:
As a citizen of the EU, if you end up in Heaven you'll find a place where the cooks are French, the police are English, the bankers are Belgian, the dancers are Spanish, the lovers are Italian, and it's all organised by the Germans.
However, should you end up in Hell you'll find the cooks are English, the police are French, the bankers are Spanish, the dancers are Belgian, the lovers are German, and it's all organised by the Italians.

IIRC, our discussion was about biases, right?

IIRC, our discussion was about biases, right?

It was, but I moved on.
I saw almost no significant differences in our opinions. I don't want to end up in a debate caused by nothing more than inelegant attempts to express our own ideas and misinterpretations of what the other was trying to say.

I saw almost no significant differences in our opinions.

Neither do I. My comment was pointed at your joke. Btw, you can ask the Brits, there is no place in Heaven for the French.

My comment was pointed at your joke.

Okay. Let's just ALL hate French!

This is from my WIP, by someone describing how things are in the afterlife:

"Most of us here learn second or third languages, usually English or Mandarin. Except for the French, of course, they refuse to speak anything except French."
"I guess the rest of you are all happy about that."
"We are. Everybody hates the French. Even the French hate the French!"

Even the French hate the French

Except French women. Brigitte Bardot was adorable.

Brigitte Bardot was adorable.

Not my type but Sophie Marceau gave me many a pleasant dream. I just doubt my dreams will help her to get into heaven.

That is easily explained by the higher numbers of intelligent men at the extreme left end of the bell curve.

I was provided "proof" of that.

you need the best qualified people to do the job

Everywhere, except in politics, in my opinion. In politics I want highly qualified looking for the best solutions for the society as a whole.

Sweden has a quota for government positions, look where they are now.

I cannot think of any reason for not citing Sweden as an example of success.

Check out the article that I linked to above and tell me that this is not a country on the brink of severe social changes.

I read enough of that link to understand its drift well enough.
I regard Sweden as a success story and in no danger of any imminent social collapse.

OK, sure. You're entitled to your opinion.

Ditto.
I'm grateful to end at that point. :-)

In the UK, girls are smarter than boys, based on exam results.
I wonder why there's the apparent turnabout.

I'd attribute the large change to social changes, less impediments for girls and higher expectations.
I'd attribute the fact that girls are now doing better to "Boys just wanna have fun!"

I'd attribute the large change to social changes, less impediments for girls and higher expectations.

I'd attribute the fact that girls are now doing better to "Boys just wanna have fun!"

....As much of the "boy's fun" results in long term consequences for the girl. So it is hardly surprising that in a society that now allows women to be independent, women are seriously pursuing employment in fields that interest (and can financially support) them. Usually jobs on the non-physical side of things(so not along side Grog the Construction Worker, although they may drool over Grog's muscles).

"The Google Manifesto" when objectively viewed, even while it has "significant issues" still is reasonably valid about a number of things. If people bothered to make the proper take-aways. The guy basically said women prefer work in fields with social interaction. He then pointed out that employment practices, even at Google, tend to make Software Engineering jobs rather anti-social and punishing enough in other ways it can be difficult to retain MALE employees. As a consequence of those two factors, it was thus logical to conclude "the gender imbalance" present in his field was a consequence of "undesirable work conditions"(for BOTH genders) which just happened to make women "opt-out" in favor of other options well before most men would and as men still comprise a majority in STEM to start with.... But that isn't what people fixated on, they instead locked into how he said it rather than what he said.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a shrinking population as long as certain issues are handled correctly.

Wrong.

Even if it's a slow shrinking it's bad for the elder.

There is the socialist approach where the working part has to pay for the retired and finally can't, because there are fewer younger every year while the number of retired grows due to increasing life expectancy and no change in retirement age.

The other approach where you invest part of your income to live from the savings when retired is also affected. Where are your savings invested? In buildings, maybe a mall or a manufactoring company, or sitting in a bank account?
In a shrinking society, the demand for goods shrinks, too. The malls won't generate the income expected, some manufactoring companies close down, there are fewer demands for credits, causing lower interest rates, which directly affects the interest for your savings account. Prices for real estate go down (shrinking population = less demand). You probably invested in diamonds, gold and silver? Or paintings and other art? Prices will go down, because of fewer people to invest. Seeing this, people will hesitate to invest, increasing the problem.

HM.

I've seen an artificial womb growing a sheep recently, so it might become possible in the next 50 years to do it for humans too.

I suspect that the idea of artificial wombs will generate a lot of controversy between the two sides of the abortion issue.

Artificial wombs render women useless, so they'll fight tooth and nail against artificial wombs, while men would happily pay for them. Hence the bitter fight.

I know several women who refuse to carry/are medically incapable of bearing a child to term who would likely be perfectly happy with an artificially gestated baby. Try again?

The problem will be the religious zealots of many different stripes as well as the conspiracy crowd.

I suspect that the idea of artificial wombs will generate a lot of controversy between the two sides of the abortion issue.

They're hoping to possibly human trial in 5 years. It's going to make the abortion debate all kinds of interesting. Among other things.

Maybe, but not necessarily. Ever evolving automation and rising/needed efficiencies will help alleviate a lot of the problems that you envision.

How?
I envision the problems caused by a shrinking population = less consumers. Less consumers = less demand for goods.
More pensioners = increasing demand for geriatric care.
Automation will free people for these professions, but automation and rising efficiencies can't change the shrinking demand for industrial goods.
There is a limit how many computers, smartphones, recliners, electric cookers, vacuum cleaners, freezers, fridges, washers, ... one person will buy (and use).

I think my family, only 2 left (my Mother 92yo and I), is already an extreme case: 4 fridges, 4 freezers, 3 washers, 2 electric cookers, 3 microwaves, 3 TVs, 4 video recorders, 3 cars, ... I don't intend to buy anything new in the foreseeable future.

HM.

Maybe, but not necessarily. Ever evolving automation and rising/needed efficiencies will help alleviate a lot of the problems that you envision.

I agree with almost all you said in that post (until I switched off in the paragraph that mentioned artificial wombs :-)
On a global basis, I foresee long-term productivity growth exceeding 3% for some time, thus the kind of consequences you describe.
However, for the most extreme example in an advanced economy, Japan, long-term trends in productivity have been so stable ever since WW II that I think there is no possibility of automation and efficiencies having sufficient benefits averting a meltdown of the "social contract" that has kept their society glued together since the beginning of their "economic miracle".
I actually cannot think of any policy their government has adopted in the last thirty years that would have been different if they'd been actively attempting to make the eventual crunch as inevitable and as devastating as they could.

However, for the most extreme example in an advanced economy, Japan, long-term trends in productivity have been so stable ever since WW II that I think there is no possibility of automation and efficiencies having sufficient benefits averting a meltdown of the "social contract" that has kept their society glued together since the beginning of their "economic miracle".

And Japan specifically was the nation I envisioned as being one of the most likely to potentially pursue such a program as I wrote up. They certainly do enough other wacky stuff, and have "cultural reasons" to find that preferable to other alternatives. (Most of East Asia still hates them because of events in WW2 and before)

Depending on how the situation regarding Islam in particular plays out, I could see a number of other nations potentially looking at such an option as well in lieu of continuing to allow Islamic (extremist) peoples to migrate into their nation in order to avoid a population decline. Which certainly has been "a thing" the EU has done. The U.S. has Latin America(Which is mainly Catholic/Christian) and an illegal immigration problem that it's been using to help forestall its own population decline.

@Friar Dave
shrinking population as long as certain issues are handled correctly.
@helmut_meukel
Even if it's a slow shrinking it's bad for the elder.

It appears to me you both recognise the potential for severe problems in countries with a shrinking population.

Helmut's comments identified all the major driving forces that can result in a country entering a "death spiral". All assumptions economists usually make go out the window once economic stagnation causes consumers and investors to defer or cancel their spending plans.

Japan is already inevitably in such a spiral. Their economy has gone nowhere for about 30 years. They've been managing to kick cans down the road and muddle through. Those cans have been accumulating into a government debt to GDP ratio of about 240%. To me, that has become an inevitable and slow-motion train wreck.

There's a saying, "If you owe the bank ten thousand dollars and you cannot pay, you have a big problem; If you owe the bank ten million dollars and you cannot pay, they have a big problem. Greece and Venezuela owe others tens of billions of dollars and cannot pay; they have big problems. The Japanese government owe others (mostly its own citizens retirement savings) ten TRILLION dollars it can NEVER pay; its savers have a huge problem which, like the "emperor's new clothes", nobody dares to tell them about. :(

Friar Dave mentioned "[if] certain issues are handled correctly". I agree. There is a tipping point, once populations begin to shrink you will be perilously close to that point, but there is still much that can be done so the consequences become mere manageable trends. The most obvious ones I can see are increasing typical retirement ages and enforced saving by workers to self-fund their retirements.

I would say the tipping point is not when the total population begins to shrink, but when the working-age population begins to shrink by more than, perhaps, 1% per annum.

The thing I see that can make both of your opinions correct is long-term productivity growth. Productivity growth fluctuates wildly during economic cycles, but if looked at over periods of longer than a decade the upper limit for highly developed societies appears to be about 2%. Government policies can affect their country's upper limits of productivity growth with things such as investments in infrastructure, education and health policies, taxation policies that favour investment rather than tax minimisation, retirement ages and savings policies, immigration policies, etc.

If long-term productivity growth exceeds the rate of decline in the working-age population, then a shrinking total population may still be manageable without severe consequences. However, once it falls below that, the disincentives of stagnating nominal GDP begin to suppress investment and consumption decisions, those suppress the potential for productivity growth, and the downward spiral is reinforced.

If long-term productivity growth exceeds the rate of decline in the working-age population, then a shrinking total population may still be manageable without severe consequences. However, once it falls below that, the disincentives of stagnating nominal GDP begin to suppress investment and consumption decisions, those suppress the potential for productivity growth, and the downward spiral is reinforced.

It should be pointed out that said productivity growth needs to more than "slightly" outpace population decline. Because you're also contending with a potential decline in consumption to likewise follow suit. Which means you're simultaneously dealing with increasing supply(via efficiency) while demand is in decline. Giving you a collision course with a market crash.

The stinker in all that is eventually you're going to contend with a supply&demand curve that is so messed up "the market" won't be able to justify further expenses in increasing efficiencies given demand is insufficient to cover said costs.

It should be pointed out ...

I very much oversimplified my description of when and why economic stagnation starts having very serious consequences - and its devilishly start to reverse once those things start happening.

I've been trying to describe the turning point. Productivity provides a buffer - but it's tiny.

I think your comments on the supply/demand curve describe how, once effects start, they self-reinforce and a snowball turns into an avalanche.

I consider the practice of marrying off girls at a very young age at best distasteful. If an alternative of continuing their education exists I would consider it barbaric. ...... AFAIK, it was quite common not very long ago across all cultures, including our own.

Remember that amongst royalty and near royalty agreeing a marriage when the girl is hardly walking was done to create alliances.
It could have other reasonable purposes - remember that even here boys are contracted to go to certain schools the day they are born - simply to ensure a place in a "suitable" school. Boys used to be sent away at age nine.
Another reason is to reduce the number of mouths which have to be fed.
To me infinitely more important is the age at which the girl is "broken in" and her willingness then.

Sunni and Shiite hate each other more than they hate other religions

I am well aware of that sad fact.

It's in my best interests to make no comment on everything else in your post.

I expect I'll be happy to discuss other subjects with you in the future.

I took the test twice once as 60 yo male got 130. as a 30 year old female got 148. Took the test at the same time on 2 computers. Answered question the same.

Easy enough to believe, that's part of the age criteria. Older people are expected to have a broader education/experience base, so they'll have to arrive at more "correct" answers than younger test takers to arrive at the same (IQ) result.

"Are you smarter than a 5th grader?" It is not.

A 60 year old should know more than a 30 year old so it is not surprising that the 60 year old got a lower score.

I doubt there is much difference in the IQ score for 30yo and 60yo males who achieve the same test result.

It is known that the spread of scores for males is wider than females. I was surprised by how much: the scores are the same for a male two standard deviations above the mean and a female more than three standard deviations above the mean.

I doubt there is much difference in the IQ score for 30yo and 60yo males who achieve the same test result.

Yes, there is. The IQ rating is not the raw test results. It is a ranking relative to the results of other people in the same age group.

While baring dementia or similar brain disease, a person with a high IQ as a teen will still have a high IQ as a senior citizen, but the gap tends to drop.

I think we are on the same page.

The original comment was:

I took the test twice once as 60 yo male got 130. as a 30 year old female got 148. Took the test at the same time on 2 computers. Answered question the same.

What would have happened if the same answers were given four times: 60yo male, 30yo male, 60yo female, 30yo female?
I would expect the IQ scores for the 60yo and 30yo male to be close, not identical, but close.
Similarly, I would expect the IQ scores for the 60yo and 30yo female to be close.

I am not surprised that the score for the female was higher. That is what I'd expect if both males and females have a (relatively) 'normal distribution' of raw scores, but the 'standard deviation' of females' scores is lower.

I was surprised by how large the difference between was between males and females.

Does that make sense to you? If it doesn't then one of us has some basic misunderstanding of how the conversion from raw scores to IQ scores is done. I would not be certain which of us that was, but I would be curious to find out.

I am not surprised that the score for the female was higher. That is what I'd expect if both males and females have a (relatively) 'normal distribution' of raw scores, but the 'standard deviation' of females' scores is lower.

Gender shouldn't be part of the equation all things considered. Any IQ test worthy of the name shouldn't be weighting along that axis. Tracking it? Sure, but not scoring based off of it.

So in that respect, male/female shouldn't impact the score. What should be causing the score to shift around should be the age.

What would have happened if the same answers were given four times: 60yo male, 30yo male, 60yo female, 30yo female?

I would expect the IQ scores for the 60yo and 30yo male to be close, not identical, but close.

Depends on what your consider close. For Identical raw test results between a 30yo male and a 60yo male, I would expect the resulting IQ score for the 60yo to be 20-30% lower.

The reality is closer to being the 60yo male should have a higher raw test score than the 30yo male, but because the 60yo age cohort in general would score higher than 30yo age cohort, the 60yo's IQ score may come out slightly lower.

the 60yo age cohort in general would score higher than 30yo age cohort, the 60yo's IQ score may come out slightly lower.

Okay. I definitely understand that. That's why I said I'd expect "to be close, not identical, but close."

But now, I am confused. A difference of 18 points is 1.2 standard deviations. That is huge.

I had always thought, same score plus same age equals same IQ score, for both male and female. The difference of 18 points was so large, inexplicable to me from merely differences of 30 and 60 years old, I then concluded the scale must be different for males and females.

Are the IQ scores different if the only difference between two tests is that one says male, and the other female?

I had always thought, same score plus same age equals same IQ score, for both male and female. The difference of 18 points was so large, inexplicable to me from merely differences of 30 and 60 years old, I then concluded the scale must be different for males and females.

A free online IQ Test is probably not a good thing to form a basis of comparison on. While there might be a couple out there that actually does try to adhere to real IQ testing practices, most of them probably best qualify as entertainment at best, and click-bait at worst. And realistically, with how "IQ scoring" works, a reputable standardized test which gives you a percentile ranking against the population/your age group would be a far better measure than a freebie online test ever would be.

As that IQ Number they generate is simply another way of expressing which population percentile you happen to fall into. (IE how many standard deviations away you are from that 50th percentile which is IQ==100)

Of course, the ACT, SAT, AFQT, and a number of other such tests ostensibly don't directly measure "intelligence," so there is a fair degree of fudge factor in regards to their accuracy when used in such a manner. But generally speaking, I'd put decent odds of them getting you within a a couple points so long as the person's score being used wasn't someone who spent months taking tailored prep courses beforehand. (In which case the result may be lower than their actual IQ, if they didn't study in advance. Likewise, the prep course user probably comes up with higher result than they should. But I'd still wager it only garners them no more than 3 or 4 points all things considered.) Of course, then there are the test-taking anxiety types who are in a league unto themselves on such tests.

Are the IQ scores different if the only difference between two tests is that one says male, and the other female?

I always thought the calculation of the IQ score from the raw test result was done using cohorts determined by age. However, if the cohorts are age and gender, that would make sense.

I've read from several sources that the standard deviation in IQ scores is lower for women then for men. Women as a group produce few scores that are both very high and very low.

A I understand it, the way the IQ score is determined is that they take your raw score on the test, and generate a percentile rank for your score against your cohort (at the 50th percentile, half the cohort scores lower or equal and half scores equal or higher.

The IQ score is 2 times your percentile rank, which is how they get 100 to be the average IQ (100 IQ = 50th percentile on test results for cohort).

With fewer high and low scores among women, it makes sense that a fixed raw score that is above average would yield a higher percentile rank and thus IQ score if the cohorts are by both age and gender.

As I understand it ...

You don't know either. :-)

Wouldn't the method you describe result in about 1% of people have an IQ of two!

There are more than 1% I meet who I suspect of owning only two brain cells they can rub together, but I don't think that's is really true.

You don't know either. :-)

Nor did I claim to ;-P

There are more than 1% I meet who I suspect of owning only two brain cells they can rub together, but I don't think that's is really true.

Anyone with an IQ that low would likely be institutionalized, you wouldn't be likely to meek them.

@ Me
You don't know either. :-)

@ You
Nor did I claim to ;-P

No offense intended.

BTW, when will you return our old Demonics Son to us? I know you must have kidnapped him, locked him up, and hijacked his username. You've been far too consistently pleasant, constructive, and helpful, for far too many months, to be the real thing.

Happy New Year. :-)

A I understand it, the way the IQ score is determined is that they take your raw score on the test, and generate a percentile rank for your score against your cohort (at the 50th percentile, half the cohort scores lower or equal and half scores equal or higher.

Read the wiki page on IQ. The scale isn't linear and is based off of standard deviations. It's structured such that nearly 50% of the human population falls between 90 to 110 or there about. Which leaves the top 25% starting at around IQ110 and moving up from there. From memory(wiki has some of the numbers, too lazy to look) the 85th percentile sits at around IQ120. The slope starts to climb from there. By the time you hit 130 you're well past the 90th percentile. So over 80% of the human population is +/- 30 points from IQ 100.

So over 80% of the human population is +/- 30 points from IQ 100.

Thanks.
I know I've seen that scales are designed attempting to achieve 15 points is one standard deviation.
If designed correctly, 68% are within 85-115, and 95% with 70-130.
That's how I always understood they worked.

I think what sharkcjw said about same answers giving 130 and 148 IQ scores is complete crap. I don't doubt he put the same answers in twice: I think the test he found must have been complete crap. A score of 130 means approx. 2.5% (2.0 standard deviations) of people at the same age score higher than you. A score of 148 means approx. 0.6% (3.2 standard deviations) of people at the same age score higher than you.