Home « Forum « Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

How young is too young for marriage?

Friar Dave

http://nhpr.convio.net/site/R?i=64R21FzOxIpen4UObkVHaA

In highly reproducing muslim countries girls can be married off as soon as they bleed. No rules for boys age usually.

Opinions?

Ernest Bywater

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.

Replies:   sejintenej  Not_a_ID
Jim S

@Friar Dave

How about refining your question? That link is for something being considered in New Hampshire. Are you limiting this question to the US? If so, the answer will be different.

Switch Blayde

@Friar Dave

I could argue that you can't sign a legal contract until you're eighteen. Isn't marriage a contract? Especially if there's a pre-nup. But a minor's parents can sign for him so giving their permission is like signing the contract for him.

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?)

Replies:   Ross at Play
sunkuwan

The marriage "as soon as she bleds" in the middle ages is mostly a myth. Sure, the royalty married off their kids at 14 to 15 (rarely at 12 to 13) but only if a suitable candidate was found.

For the peasants, it was a completely different matter. Health and survivability was an utmost concern. The parents didn't marry off their teenage sons and daughters if it wasn't certain that the husband couldn't take care of the family. Also, the teenage years weren't yet over the critical child-death phase of the middle ages and it wasn't a surety that the child would live to her adult phase.

awnlee jawking

@Friar Dave

In certain primitive cultures which practise arranged (forced) marriages, some children are considered married almost from the moment they're born, although consummation has to wait until the girls bleed (as happened with Mohammed and his 6yo wife, according to legend).

AJ

Ross at Play

I think it is hypocritical to single out another culture as having barbaric customs when the customs in our own culture were much the same only yesterday, in the 1890s.

Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

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.

awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

I come from an institutionally hypocritical culture which erroneously considers itself civilised :(

AJ

Replies:   REP
Switch Blayde

@Ross at Play

were much the same only yesterday, in the 1890s.


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.

Replies:   Ross at Play  Not_a_ID
REP

@awnlee jawking

which erroneously considers itself civilised :(


All cultures believe themselves civilized. Almost all are wrong. I can't think of a single culture that I would call civilized; some are just more civilized than others.

Replies:   John Demille
John Demille

@REP

I can't think of a single culture that I would call civilized; some are just more civilized than others.


That highly depends on the definition of 'civilized'. For muslims, only a country under the rule of Sharia is considered civilized.

What is your definition of civilized?

Replies:   Ross at Play  REP
Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

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.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

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.


I suspect that a glacially slow recognition that children have rights is also a contributory factor.

Many countries now ban child labour, child beating and the use of children for spare parts.

AJ

Replies:   Dominions Son
Ross at Play

@John Demille

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.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
REP
Updated:

@John Demille

Civilized - A concept expressed in terms of peoples' ideal behavior when placed in defined situations.

To differentiate between 'civilized' and 'uncivilized', you need to define the manner in which people should behave. Proper behavior is a cultural concept and proper behavior is defined by the morality of a specific culture. Since 'moral' and 'immoral' are variables, proper behavior is also a variable. Therefore, each culture has its definition of 'Civilized' and any culture that deviates from the culture's definition of proper behavior is labeled 'Uncivilized'.

sejintenej

@Ernest Bywater

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)

Wheezer

While the general legal age to be married without parental consent in the US is 18, with a couple of states requiring 19 or 21, there really is NOT a minimum age WITH the consent of at least one custodial parent in many states. Sometimes a judge must also sign off.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/08/30/547072368/a-look-at-the-loopholes-that-allow-child-marriage-in-the-u-s

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/200000-children-married-us-15-years-child-marriage-child-brides-new-jersey-chris-christie-a7830266.html

My first wife was 16 when we married. My cousin was 14 (and pregnant)when she married a guy in his late 20's.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Wheezer

My cousin was 14 (and pregnant)when she married a guy in his late 20's.


How was he not prosecuted for sex with a minor?

Replies:   Wheezer
Dominions Son

@awnlee jawking

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.

Wheezer
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


How was he not prosecuted for sex with a minor?


Same reason I wasn't.

Well, the parents have to press charges first. Marriage has got a lot of guys off the hook.

Zom

@Ross at Play

single out another culture as having barbaric customs

Where did "barbaric" come from?

richardshagrin

@Zom

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."

AmigaClone

@richardshagrin

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...

Ross at Play
Updated:

@Zom

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?

Replies:   Friar Dave  Zom
sejintenej

@Dominions Son

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

Friar Dave

@Ross at Play

Where did "Muslim" come from? Where did "highly reproducing" come from?


I was contrasting from personal experience. I was born and raised in such a country. I moved away in my twenties.

The 'highly reproducing' bit was to acknowledge that not all muslim countries are the same.

Where I was born, it was very rare for a muslim girl to remain unmarried beyond her 15th year.

Two muslim friends of mine, Mahmoud and his uncle Mohammad (same age both) when they reached the age of 19, the local sheik called them over and questioned them about why they haven't sought marriage yet and specifically why they don't seem to want to fulfill their duty of having children, when they didn't have a good excuse, he arranged for two sisters (14 and 16) to marry them the next week. They lived with their wives in their own parents' homes until they had two kids each, after that they got their own homes with the help of their fathers.

About two years ago, the country's top imam decreed that all couples must strive to have a minimum of six kids instead of the previously highly encouraged five children, and I heard funny stories about older couples (in their forties) working on that sixth child if they had only five.

So, your experience doesn't match mine. And living in one muslim country doesn't mean you know muslim people. Indonesia is not even an Arab country. Yes it's muslim, but nothing like Arab Muslim countries. It's very far from the radical core of islam in the arab peninsula. Also, Indonesia is now mostly muslim. Muslim reproduce very quickly (by imam's decree usually) in countries where they are not a majority.

Capt. Zapp

@sejintenej

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.

Switch Blayde

@richardshagrin

the Greeks used the term towards those who didn't speak Greek and follow classical Greek customs.


That's when those other people coined the term, "It's all Greek to me."

Switch Blayde

@Friar Dave

the country's top imam decreed that all couples must strive to have a minimum of six kids


No different than the pope and the Catholic church. The goal was (is?) to take over the world with numbers.

Replies:   John Demille
Ross at Play

@Friar Dave

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.

Replies:   Friar Dave
Friar Dave

@Ross at Play

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.


Seriously? OK, I'll humour you.

My comment is about the subject that I used for a thread. How young is too young for marriage? Americans think it should be 18 or at least 16 (according to the linked article). Muslims think that as soon as a girl bleeds.

Opinions? as in where do you stand on the subject.

You seem to really want to make things personal. If you want to participate in the discussion, then simply state your opinion on the subject matter and don't try to cast aspersions on my motivations. If you don't like the way that I start the conversation you're absolutely free to stay out of it.

Are you a muslim or are you getting offended on behalf of those poor poor prosecuted muslims?

Replies:   Ross at Play  red61544
John Demille

@Switch Blayde

the country's top imam decreed that all couples must strive to have a minimum of six kids


No different than the pope and the Catholic church. The goal was (is?) to take over the world with numbers.


Many groups try to expand by simple and aggressive procreation. Muslims are the most aggressive about it. Catholics hardly listen to the church anymore and they certainly don't over-procreate when asked to.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Ross at Play

@Friar Dave

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.

Replies:   Zom
Dominions Son

@sejintenej

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.

Replies:   REP  richardshagrin
Switch Blayde

@John Demille

Catholics hardly listen to the church anymore and they certainly don't over-procreate when asked to.


The Church still says contraceptives are not allowed. Why? Because that's one less person born into their faith. It's all about numbers. Whether people listen to them is another issue.

red61544

@Friar Dave

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.

REP

@Dominions Son

I don't think there is an equivalent thing in the US


I've seen Produce Market

Replies:   Dominions Son
richardshagrin

@Dominions Son

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.

Dominions Son

@REP

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)

Replies:   REP
Dominions Son

@richardshagrin

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.

Replies:   PotomacBob
Switch Blayde

@richardshagrin

I lived in (just outside) Brooklyn Heights in the mid and late 1970s.


I grew up in Brooklyn, leaving in 1976. There were supermarkets. The A&P was one. I think I shopped in Walbaums.

But Brooklyn was different than most cities. People walked to the store. So the local grocery store, drug store, candy store, etc. was able to survive back then.

REP

@Dominions Son

Where?


About a mile south of my house. It is now out of business, but at the time I think it was called 'John's Produce Mart'.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Zom

@Ross at Play

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.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Dominions Son

@REP

About a mile south of my house.


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

Replies:   Zom
Zom

@Dominions Son

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.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@Zom

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

Replies:   awnlee jawking  Zom  Not_a_ID
awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

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


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

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

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.

Replies:   sejintenej
Zom

@Ross at Play

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.

Replies:   Ross at Play
sejintenej
Updated:

@Ross at Play


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.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Zom

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.

Ross at Play

@sejintenej

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.

PotomacBob

@Dominions Son

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?

PotomacBob

@Dominions Son

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

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@PotomacBob

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

docholladay

I think it has been a combination of:Time period and Culture. The normal factors change constantly depending on both factors. Cultural differences can be found in almost every major Nation or Culture's history.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


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."

Not_a_ID

@Switch Blayde


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.

Replies:   sejintenej
Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son

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.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Ross at Play


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.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Zom

@Ross at Play

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 :-)

Ross at Play

@Not_a_ID

@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.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
sejintenej
Updated:

@Not_a_ID


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

Ross at Play

@sejintenej

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!

StarFleet Carl

@Ross at Play

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.


I don't think that's changed a whole lot in the last 30 some odd years. I was doing my law enforcement internship riding with the Sheriff's Department and we got a report of a traffic accident. Two males of middle eastern descent (and what was it with them and black Trans-Am's at that time?) had run a light and T-boned a car with a young woman driving. Fortunately, they'd hit the passenger side. She was bleeding from hitting her head on the glass of the drivers door, they had minor scratches. They were upset because EMS was treating her and not them, they kept saying she was only a woman and thus not important enough to be seen before them.

The redeeming thing was that we got to arrest them for interfering with EMS (one of them actually grabbed a paramedic demanding to be treated), running a red light, driving without a valid state license (they had licenses issued by their home country, which were NOT valid here), assault upon a police officer (pushed my deputy when he got in between them and the paramedic), and something else that I don't remember.

I got extra class credit, because I ended up having to testify as well, since I was a witness. It was funny as hell since they had Daddy's high priced lawyer in town to get them off, and ... let's just say that backfired on them. He tried to play the diplomatic immunity card, even. Passenger got 3 months and a fine for his actions, driver got 1 year and a huge fine. Lawyer got 3 days for contempt of court. (Don't get me wrong, he HAD contempt for the court. A weekend behind bars helped his attitude immensely.)

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@StarFleet Carl

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".

Replies:   Friar Dave
Friar Dave

@Ross at Play

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".


My experience growing up in the midst is somewhat different. Muslim men are just like other religions' males when dealing with other men. There are the high testosterone aggressive bastards and there are the gentle and meek among them.

However, muslim men's attitude towards women is distinct these days in that it stands out from modern view of women (mostly as equals). That may make them look too arrogant to anybody who was raised to respect women and treat them as equals.

Muslim men, due to their religion's teachings (and what's in the Qur'an) view women as second class and should be subservient to their male superiors. Their holy book even has specific mentions on how to discipline/beat a woman when she steps out of line. Any muslim man that reads the Qur'an and the 'Hadith' learns a specific point of view/attitude towards women and if they are religious, then they treat women in a certain way that seem barbaric to any westerner.

Replies:   Wheezer  REP
Wheezer

@Friar Dave

Any muslim man that reads the Qur'an and the 'Hadith' learns a specific point of view/attitude towards women and if they are religious, then they treat women in a certain way that seem barbaric to any westerner.


That's because they ARE barbaric. Barbaric behavior excused as religious belief is still barbaric behavior - regardless of the name of the religion used to excuse it.

REP

@Friar Dave

If we were to go back in time to before the concepts in the Qur'an, Torah, and Bible were place in written form, we would find those concepts were passed down through multiple generations verbally.

Each generation had a person who was the keeper of the concepts and the keepers evolved the concepts based on their experiences and what they believed. Considering the social structures of the time, these keepers were most likely male and their beliefs about women being less than a man undoubtedly influenced the concepts they passed on to their successors. Once those concepts were place in written form, the religious leaders decided that they did not agree with the written concepts, so they modified or deleted what they did not like.

I am always dumbfounded by people quoting the concepts contained in their 'holy book' to prove that they are right. One of the things most of these 'holy book' quoters fail to realize is the content of their 'holy book' has changed since it was first recorded in a permanent format. 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.

Replies:   sejintenej
Ross at Play
Updated:

A joke ...
Q. What makes a successful Asian marriage?
A. The man makes all decisions about all the big stuff, and the woman makes all decisions about the small stuff.
Explanation: The woman makes all decisions about money, children, housing, education, holidays, etc. The man makes all decisions about religion.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Ross at Play


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).

Replies:   Friar Dave
Friar Dave

@Not_a_ID

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


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.

https://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21732695-plural-marriage-bred-inequality-begets-violence-link-between-polygamy-and-war

Societies with legal polygyny have an excess of young men who have no access to women, their usual solution is to either send them away via legal and illegal immigration or having a large enough number of them killed in wars.

The biggest advancement in western societies, which brought on our current advanced and very stable society, is the idea of monogamy that got enshrined in all western constitutions. It led to young men feeling fairly confident in their chance to father children and led to most men being productive members in society which in turn led to the economic boom of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Even if the population doesn't sustain its numbers, it would be in a stable society. There is nothing inherently wrong with a shrinking population as long as certain issues are handled correctly. A highly socialist society, with lots of expensive social programs, would need an always expanding population to help pay for those social programs with an ever increasing tax base. Such a society eventually collapses unless drastic measures are taken. If a society has minor social programs and keeps its budget balanced, then a shrinking population doesn't pose much danger of having the whole thing collapsing under the weight of debt.

This is what's currently happening in Europe. Europe has had shrinking populations for the last 40 years or more. Finland has had a below replacement fertility rate since 1960. Other European countries soon followed. Their solution: Import more people to help pay for the whole thing. Most illustrative example: Sweden. They have a highly socialist, feminist government leading to a shrinking population. Their solution was to import a huge number of young men from the Middle East and Africa and now their society is showing signs of collapse. Sweden now holds the dishonour of having the highest rate of rape in the whole world. The police are too busy fighting to contain gang wars and rape victims are being ignored and they wait for justice.

http://quillette.com/2017/10/10/swedens-sexual-assault-crisis-presents-feminist-paradox/

The United States and Canada now have below replacement fertility rates and they're compensating with immigrants. No one really knows how sustainable such policies are, especially as fertility rates are falling below replacement in the majority of the world. Where are the rich countries going to import bodies from when every country in the world has below replacement fertility rate.

Oy, did I ever get carried away!

Ok, back to the original subject: No, you don't really want a society where polygyny is practiced in any significant numbers. Keep large harems in the realm of SOL fantasies.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  helmut_meukel
richardshagrin

Ignorance and apathy responding. I don't know and I don't care. The world seems to have plenty of people, more than in history. If it is going down after I die, let them worry about it. My only contribution to the situation is to consider Ireland in the 1800s and early 1900s. Men didn't marry until they were in their late thirties or forties, they couldn't afford a wife earlier. And they married much younger women. Perhaps that is why pubs were so popular for the young, unmarried men? Even with considerable emigration and some death from starvation their population grew. As was pointed out, the important population growth issue is how many children do the women have. It doesn't matter how old or how few the men are. It has some impact on the level of the economy and what taxes can be collected, which is what the government wants. Perhaps sequential polygamy, with men having wives who give birth and then die, marrying again another wife, or two, or three, after the previous one dies, divorces, or otherwise leaves (to Mars or the stars?) after having a little over one child, on the average, population will stabilize. Probably opportunity for a science fiction story with a much different society.

AmigaClone

If I recall Paraguay supposedly lost over 80% of it's "adult male" population as a result of a war with Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay in the mid 1800s. In that specific type of situation there might be an excuse for polygyny for a generation or two - but only as a temporary solution.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Friar Dave


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.

Replies:   Friar Dave
helmut_meukel

@Friar Dave

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.

Replies:   Friar Dave  Ross at Play
Friar Dave

@Not_a_ID

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.


Yes, I missed the genetical engineering part.

Warning: Very Very unpopular and very politically incorrect opinion ahead.

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.

Have you ever heard of an actual matriarchal society that left any imprint on this world?

A world where men comprise less than 40% of the population would devolve into chaos. There is a reason that evolution resulted in 108 male births to every 100 female births.

Who do you think is responsible for the current socialist movement that's now taking over the west and will only result in the erasure of western civilization?

Replies:   Not_a_ID  REP
Friar Dave

@helmut_meukel

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


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

An ever expanding population isn't possible anymore. Fertility rates are shrinking. In 1970 total fertility rate (TFR) for the whole world was 4.45, more than double the replacement rate, that TFR coupled with dropping child mortality rates caused the rapid expansion in world population. In 2014 it had dropped to 2.5, barely above the replacement rate of 2.1. [ http://brilliantmaps.com/fertility-rates/ ] While many social scientists predict that the world's population would start to decline by the end of the 21st century, I believe it will start declining earlier.

The drop in the fertility rates is accelerating. With smart phones, ubiquitous connectivity, falling poverty, rising education, improving health care and falling child mortality rates across the world, it won't be too long until most people don't have enough kids anymore. The biggest effect on TFR is child mortality rates. People want to ensure that their progeny survives. So if the chance of your child dying is close to zero, you have close to zero incentive to have more than one child.

Another effect is that governments and the UN itself have all been so worried about the world collapsing under the weight of an out of control population expansion (as shown in many scifi books and movies over the last 50 years) that their effort to curb population growth have overshot their goals.

Maybe, in the future, scientists might succeed in developing some kind of artificial womb that can produce babies bypassing the willingness of women to get pregnant, birth and raise kids. If they do, then they might be able to maintain the number of people living on earth. 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.

richardshagrin

Having children is getting to be a consumption choice. Consider the cost of raising even one child and sending them to College/University, depending on what they study and where, it may cost nearly a million dollars to raise a child to adulthood (where he or she has a reasonable job and perhaps a home of his or her own.) And emotional costs, not just cash. There seems to be a lot less social pressure to have lots of children, or even more than one. It may wind up that retirement costs prevent to outgo for more children. Save for your 70s, 80s, and 90s or send more kids to college?

Replies:   John Demille  REP
AmigaClone

@Friar Dave

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.

Replies:   Friar Dave  Not_a_ID
John Demille

@richardshagrin

Consider the cost of raising even one child and sending them to College/University, depending on what they study and where, it may cost nearly a million dollars to raise a child to adulthood (where he or she has a reasonable job and perhaps a home of his or her own.)


That's one of the things that need to change soon. Student debt in the west (especially the US) has reached epic proportion with many totally unable to pay it off in their lifetime.

Most needed jobs don't really need a university level degree. So the cost that's being paid is being paid for nothing necessary. A college degree is nothing more than an artificial requirement. I would say that any job that doesn't require 115 IQ level should just be taught in trade schools at much lower cost.

Also colleges/universities in the US need to curb their administrative costs. (Can anybody justify a university having more than one admin per student? It's so at most of the Ivy League schools).

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Friar Dave


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.

Replies:   Friar Dave
Friar Dave

@AmigaClone

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


The fight won't be between the pro-life and pro-choice. It will be between women and men.

Just like men don't like to be considered superfluous in the continuation of the species, women don't want that either. Artificial wombs render women superfluous. In every human society women are valued over men because of their ability to have babies. One man can impregnate hundreds of women (if needed and with the help of artificial means) but a woman can only have roughly one child per year. A society that loses too many men can still survive, but a society that loses too many women can't.

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.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  REP
Not_a_ID

@AmigaClone


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.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Friar Dave


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.

Friar Dave

@Not_a_ID

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.


That's another feminist fantasy. "We women are just as good as men if we're allowed to be."

Yes, there are accomplished and very smart women, but for humanity as a whole, it's about about the difference between men and women in IQ variability and men's systemizing ability vs women's empathizing ability.

Unpopular fact ahead. The following fact is so un-PC that it's blasphemy to discuss it in academia, but since this forum isn't really academia, I think I can tell these facts:

Men on average are slightly smarter than women. The IQ bell curve for men is flatter than that of women and the median peak is slightly forward of the women's peak (about 3 points).

The flatter men's bell curve means there are way more stupid men than women. Between IQ of 50 to 85, there are way more men than women. At IQ 65 there are 10 men for every woman. That's a lot of stupid men.

However, the same flatter curve of distribution means that there are way more smart men than smart women. At IQ 135 there are 10 men to every woman. At IQ 150 there are 50 men to every woman. No women have ever been measured at an IQ higher than 171, while many, many men have. Einstein's and Newton's level of intelligence doesn't exist in women due to evolution.

This difference in IQ and men's systemizing abilities mean that building a world like the one we're currently living in is very hard to do if you were restricted to women's levels of IQ.

Friar Dave

@Not_a_ID

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 exception doesn't negate the rule. Just because a minority of women would be happy to use artificial wombs doesn't mean that all will.

Yes, many different people will have their own reasons for being pro/against artificial wombs, but the biggest losers will be normal women and those are the majority and they will fight to keep their role.

Not_a_ID


Yes, many different people will have their own reasons for being pro/against artificial wombs, but the biggest losers will be normal women and those are the majority and they will fight to keep their role.


Well, I doubt anyone is going to rip out their uterus, or otherwise sterilize them. They will remain able to bear children the old fashioned way, and it will undoubtedly be cheaper as well. Just not as "convenient" as they'll have to watch their diet and contend with hormones and everything else.

REP

@Friar Dave

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


Cause and effect Dave.

Way back when, our environment threatened our survival. The family unit was formed so women could birth children and care for them. It was the man's job to bring home food and to defend the family unit. Continuation of the family unit was a joint effort.

The men bringing more resources into the family unit was the cause. The effect was their society viewed the women as less productive than the men (i.e., men viewed raising children, cooking food, cleaning, etc., as non-productive tasks because the women brought nothing into the family unit.)

Jump several thousand years forward and you find that women had been relegated to the home because men believed they were not capable of competing in a man's world. That attitude persists today despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

If you need an actual example - until last year women were not allowed to drive cars in Saudi Arabia. Men believed they were not capable of operating a vehicle. The men totally ignored the fact that women in other countries operated cars and had done so for many years. Their belief, a woman was not capable of operating a car, was a self-fulfilling prophecy (i.e., women didn't operate cars in their country, thus they were not capable of doing so). The men totally ignored the fact that the women didn't operate cars because the LAW prevented them from doing so.

Your above statement is another self-fulfilling prophecy. If women are not allowed to contribute to the building of the world we live in, then their contributions will be minimal.

Replies:   Friar Dave
REP

@richardshagrin

Having children is getting to be a consumption choice.


Madam, there is no such thing as a tough child – if you parboil them first for seven hours, they always come out tender. ----W.C. Fields :)

REP

@Friar Dave

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.


If artificial wombs became common place, women would rejoice and men would scream.

The woman could contribute her egg and the man his sperm. The woman wouldn't have to endure the problems they experience with pregnancy. The women would not have to have sex with the man. :)

REP

@Friar Dave

Here is a fact for you Dave.

IQ tests are a measurement of a person's ability to learn. The scores are meaningless if the person doesn't apply themself.

Replies:   Zom  Friar Dave
Zom

@REP

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 :-)

sejintenej

@REP

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

Ross at Play

@helmut_meukel

@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.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
helmut_meukel

@Friar Dave

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.

Replies:   Friar Dave
Ross at Play

@Friar Dave

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.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Ross at Play
Updated:

@Friar Dave

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.

Replies:   robberhands  Friar Dave
robberhands

@Ross at Play

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.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play
Updated:

@robberhands

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.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands

@Ross at Play

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.

awnlee jawking

@sejintenej

The problems of many people in the USA are well known but even here treatment is patchy.


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 :(

AJ

Replies:   sejintenej
Ross at Play

@robberhands

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. :-)

awnlee jawking

@Not_a_ID

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.


And some women have elective Caesarians because they don't want to suffer the dangers and effects of a traditional birth, and because they believe they will regain their figures quicker.

The human female is actually poorly designed to give birth to a human baby, now that head sizes have increased commensurate with brain capacity.

Logically, most women should jump at the chance of using artificial wombs. Women's careers are actually more lucrative than men's on average until they reach child-bearing years and their careers stagnate. Freeing women from childbirth would enable them to play a much greater role in the world and hopefully soften the confrontational ways of business and politics.

AJ

awnlee jawking

@Friar Dave

Men on average are slightly smarter than women.


In the UK, girls are smarter than boys, based on exam results.

I wonder why there's the apparent turnabout.

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play  Friar Dave
Ross at Play

@robberhands

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.

Replies:   robberhands
Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

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!"

Replies:   Not_a_ID
robberhands

@Ross at Play

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?

Not_a_ID

@Ross at Play

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.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@robberhands

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.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Ross at Play


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.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@Not_a_ID

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.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Ross at Play


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.

helmut_meukel

@robberhands

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.

Replies:   robberhands
Friar Dave

@REP

Your above statement is another self-fulfilling prophecy. If women are not allowed to contribute to the building of the world we live in, then their contributions will be minimal.


See my post above IQ distribution.

Friar Dave

@REP

IQ tests are a measurement of a person's ability to learn. The scores are meaningless if the person doesn't apply themself.


IQ tests measure potential mental capabilities. Whether used to full potential or not is not important. No matter how much a person who has an IQ of 100 apply themselves in physics, they won't be able to handle much beyond the basics.

Success in life is complex and depends on personality. Openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, IQ and pure luck all play a role.

Scientific breakthroughs like relativity, quantum physics and even newtonian physics required freakish intelligence to figure out without anybody teaching Newton and Einstein. Once Newton laid out the rule, it was easy to teach physics to reasonably intelligent people. Once Einstein figured out relativity, it also was easier to teach it. But how many people do you really believe could do what Einstein or Newton did?

Are you remotely suggesting that we all have the same intelligence? Are you remotely suggesting that anybody put in Einstein's place could have written the theory of general relativity?

If people have different intelligence levels, then there should be a way to measure that intelligence. IQ tests, whether you agree or not, do a good job of figuring out how much potential intelligence a subject has (used or not).

Replies:   awnlee jawking  REP
robberhands

@helmut_meukel

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.

Friar Dave

@helmut_meukel

Automation will free people for these professions, but automation and rising efficiencies can't change the shrinking demand for industrial goods.


You'll need something other than GDP numbers to measure economic success/progress in a shrinking population.

I'm not suggesting that the problems facing a shrinking world population are simple nor trivial. They are serious problems that humanity will have to face and find acceptable solutions for. Whether you raise retirement age, use robotics and AI to do what needs to be done etc... humanity will need to figure it out and I'm sure eventually they will.

Not everybody will be happy about whatever solutions they'll settle on, but as a whole, it should work out.

Friar Dave

@Ross at Play

Judit Polgár's peak world rating was #8. AFAIK, no other woman has ever made it into the top 50.


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

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.


And that my friend is a recipe for disaster. In a shrinking world, there is no room for racism/sexism. For a government to handle the enormous problems caused by a shrinking population (where you can't import more useful people), you need the best qualified people to do the job; the absolute best. Whether the best are women or men is irrelevant. I don't mind a government made up of all women, if they are the best, they should get the job. If men are the best then they should get the job. When you impose quotas, you're discriminating against some of the best whoever they are.

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

Ross at Play

@robberhands

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.

Replies:   robberhands
helmut_meukel

@robberhands

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.

robberhands

@Ross at Play

IIRC, our discussion was about biases, right?

Replies:   Ross at Play
Friar Dave

@awnlee jawking

In the UK, girls are smarter than boys, based on exam results.

I wonder why there's the apparent turnabout.


Easy to explain. I have girls and boys in school now so I can speak from first hand experience. Girls are being pushed, encouraged and aided to do better. Boys are being actively hampered by the feminist school system.

My oldest is a girl. When she started school we kept getting glowing praise from teachers. We were offered info about programs for the gifted and info about future programs to ensure her success. We were ecstatic about her prospects and filled with joy.

My second is a boy. From all indications at home, he was smarter than her, very clearly quite smarter than her. He is two years younger and can easily figure out her home work and the stuff she's learning. He learned to read before he even went to school simply by watching her. And remember, both are my children and I love them dearly. So when he started going to school we expected even more from him.

Yet, when he went to school we got nothing but complaints from teacher, they even went far enough as to suggest remedial and behavioural classes and requested an ADD assessment. He wasn't that active for a boy.

The curriculum is geared towards girls. Everything is a presentation. One presentation he put up a lot of work and it was amazing presentation for a six-year-old, and yet he got a B. It was the best mark for the boys in class but it was nowhere near the girls marks, most of whom got A and A+. The most frustrating part? is that he got marks deducted because he didn't do the hand gestures that the teacher was looking for during the presentation. How fucked up is that?

Everybody knows that boys shy away from the spotlight compared to girls. I don't know about you, but that to me is a clear bias in schools against boys. In western school systems feminism is rampant and boys are treated like defective girls that need to be controlled and corralled like a bunch of animals.

So yeah, girls are getting better results in the current school systems who are tailored specifically to boost girls.

Friar Dave

@robberhands

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


It's very clear that you're being sarcastic, but that is actually scarily/sadly accurate.

Ross at Play

@Friar Dave

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.

Replies:   Friar Dave
Friar Dave
Updated:

@Ross at Play

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


Do you know what's going on in Sweden now? Sweden won't remain the Sweden you're thinking about for much longer.

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. Few days ago the Swedish minister of internal affairs came right out and said that they 'may have made a mistake' in importing so many immigrants.

You can't ignore human nature like the blank slatists actively do now and run a successful society long term.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@robberhands

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.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands

@Ross at Play

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.

Ross at Play

@Friar Dave

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.

Replies:   Friar Dave
Friar Dave

@Ross at Play

I regard Sweden as a success story and in no danger of any imminent social collapse.


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

Since we're discussing something that is yet to happen, I guess we'll just wait and see. Time will prove one of us right.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play
Updated:

@robberhands

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!"

Replies:   richardshagrin
Ross at Play

@Friar Dave

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

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

awnlee jawking

@Friar Dave

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.

So someone with a very low IQ can learn to be intelligent - an IQ measurement is only valid for the instant at which it is made.

Einstein was actually second to the theory of relativity - Henri Poincare came up with E=mc2 before him. There has been much suspicion of plagiarism - Einstein didn't have the intelligence to understand quantum physics - but even though Einstein was a patent clerk, nobody has been able to prove he encountered Poincare's formula.

I think it's more a case that when an idea's time has come, multiple people have it around the same time and it's often the second person to come up with the idea who gets the credit.

AJ

Replies:   robberhands
awnlee jawking

@Friar Dave

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


There are many other explanations just as easy. Why would girls, brought up on nurturing toys like dolls, suddenly take up a war game?

AJ

Replies:   Friar Dave
richardshagrin

@Ross at Play

Even the French hate the French

Except French women. Brigitte Bardot was adorable.

Replies:   robberhands
awnlee jawking

@robberhands

there is no place in Heaven for the French.


No, they reputedly never bathe ;)

AJ

robberhands

@awnlee jawking

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?

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@robberhands

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

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.

AJ

docholladay

@awnlee jawking

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.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
robberhands

@awnlee jawking

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.

sejintenej

@awnlee jawking

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.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Friar Dave

@awnlee jawking

Why would girls, brought up on nurturing toys like dolls, suddenly take up a war game?


Yes of course. Anything other than the politically incorrect answer.

awnlee jawking

@sejintenej

They CAN'T know everything


That's a problem with how we chose GPs. They're expected to know everything but there are complaints made daily that GPs need more training on Paediatrics, Sepsis, Meningitis, heart conditions, mental health, geriatrics, cancer etc etc. And it already takes ten years or more to get a newly minted GP.

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.

AJ

Replies:   sejintenej
robberhands

@richardshagrin

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.

Not_a_ID

@awnlee jawking

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...

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@docholladay


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 ____)

Replies:   PotomacBob
sejintenej

@awnlee jawking

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!

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Not_a_ID
Updated:

Something else should also be pointed out for (author) consideration on a heavy skew favoring women.

If you want to quickly grow a population(such as a colony in space) without resorting to something like an artificial womb, then going for multiple women per individual male as your (generational) population mix allows potential to grow things much more quickly than the natural near 1:1 population mix seen today.

After all, just 1 viable guy can impregnate a lot of women without technological aid.

awnlee jawking

@sejintenej

Presumably the system was designed by well qualified medical personnel but it is subject to giving answers unusual for the situation.


Absolutely. It's operated in some cases by students with only a few hours training, and they robotically persist with the questions even when it would be clear to a trained professional that something serious was amiss and they should cut to the important symptoms.

Telephone triage, which according to a Cambridge Uni study, actually wastes between 10%-50% more of GP time than if they had seen the patient face-to face in the first instance, denies the GP the chance to observe symptoms for themselves, take blood pressure, listen to the heartbeat and lung function etc.

In their hysterical attempts to deny patients access to GPs, the bean counters are making things worse. Their more asinine suggestions include putting the GPs patients can't see at surgeries into A&E Departments to triage walk-ins, and including GPs who won't make home visits amongst paramedic staff to make ... home visits.

AJ

REP

@Friar Dave

No matter how much a person who has an IQ of 100 apply themselves in physics, they won't be able to handle much beyond the basics.


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.

Replies:   helmut_meukel
helmut_meukel
Updated:

@REP


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.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@helmut_meukel

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.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@helmut_meukel


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.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Friar Dave

Hi Dave,

May I say that my opinion about you has changed during the course of this thread.

Let's start with the positive! :-)

What I have seen in your posts not directly related to the OP is someone with whom I expect to enjoy many informed, opinionated (we are all very opinionated here), but respectful debates about facts and our differences of opinion.

What in saw in earlier posts (and this is my attempt to be kind :-) was a frothing-at-the-mouth, bigoted, Muslim-hating provocateur.

You say that was not your intention. I accept that now, but I still think my interpretation of the words you wrote was reasonable.

One thing that pushed my buttons was statements only mentioning Muslims. They definitely implied you were talking about something peculiar to Muslims. I would have worded them quite differently if my intention was to cite Muslims as an example of such things.

One main thing that pushed my buttons was what I would call "loaded language". It definitely appeared to me that your choices of expressions such as "highly reproductive", "imam's decrees", and especially "as soon as she bleeds" – more than once – were deliberate attempts to trigger hatred in those who read them.

* * *

For my part, I intend to "reset my clock" concerning you. I look forward to friendly, informed, and respectful discussions with you in the future. I will attempt to look very closely before responding to anything you say about Muslims. When it is clear you are stating something as an opinion I will try to let it pass. If it appears you are asserting something as a fact I will feel free to contest your statements.

For your part, will you please try to be more careful in your wording of statements about issues that may be contentious to others. I am not asking you to self-censor your posts: I mean only (a) attempt to be explicit when you only intend something as a statements of your opinions, and (b) attempt to be explicit about the scope of your statements. For example, if you mean the word "Muslim" only as an example, then say it is an example ­– otherwise people are likely to interpret it as meaning "Muslim only".

BTW, happy new year! And welcome to these forums too. New voices are always welcome on the forums, although I note you've posted many high scoring stories over a long period.

* * *

Moving on to my specific objections to (the wording of) your OP and follow-up comments …

I would strongly disagree with any implication that "highly reproducing countries" are substantially more prevalent among Muslim countries than non-Muslim ones. I think the map I linked to above is conclusive proof of that. Almost all highly reproducing countries – both maroon and orange – are in Africa. There are no trends in birthrates apparent from the strongly Muslim north, through the transition region, down to the strongly Christian south.

I think high birthrates have almost nothing to do with religion, and are almost entirely driven by poverty (plus things like poor education, health, etc. directly related to poverty). Across all religions, birthrates begin to decline rapidly once parents feel confident they do not need to have as many children to be sure some will survive to take care for them during their old age.

I analysed data for the 37 countries above a minimum population and more than two-thirds Muslim. Of the 19 with the highest birthrates, 18 were in the lower hundred of countries ranked by GDP per capita. Of the 18 with lower birthrates, only two were in the lower hundred of income!

I haven't examined age of first marriage data in any detail. I was planning to look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_age_at_first_marriage#Africa

Nothing jumped out as appearing significant when I first looked at it.

* * *

I will acknowledge some things in statements you've made as "grains of truth". I am no apologist for Muslims. Living among them, I probably have more valid reasons to dislike their culture than just about everybody else who posts here.

Some of my opinions which you may well share are:

_* 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. Still, I find it hard to condemn without feeling like a hypocrite. AFAIK, it was quite common not very long ago across all cultures, including our own.

_* I believe the practice is relatively rare, mostly related to extreme poverty, across all countries. Is it more common in strongly Muslim countries? My guess is that it probably is.

_* I also see much evidence that the practice of Islam, as opposed to the correct interpretation of their holy books, has a strong and deeply entrenched streak of misogyny.

_* I don't see much difference between attempts by leaders of Muslim and other religions to promote large families, especially Catholics. I don't see either as influencing their followers much. Are such efforts by Muslim leaders more inflammatory? My guess is they probably are.

Replies:   sejintenej  Friar Dave
Ross at Play
Updated:

@Not_a_ID

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.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands

@Ross at Play

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.

sejintenej

@helmut_meukel

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

sejintenej

@Ross at Play

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.

awnlee jawking

@helmut_meukel

She was an apprentice and could cite all when asked, but she was unable to apply the knowledge to her daily work.


Heh! I've met more than my fair share of programmers with reams of Microsoft certificates but who were incapable of designing and programming a working computer application :(

AJ

Friar Dave

@Ross at Play

Thank you for your kind words. I'll do my best too to be as civilized as possible.

I would strongly disagree with any implication that "highly reproducing countries" are substantially more prevalent among Muslim countries than non-Muslim ones.


What you took as somewhat insulting/inflammatory in my statement, I meant it as a specific statement to narrow my comment about those countries who are highly reproducing. Not to imply that all muslim countries are highly reproducing and not to imply the high fertility rate is a muslim phenomena.

I never mentioned any specific countries, but I will clarify. You're living in Indonesia, right? It's about 90% muslim and they're probably mostly Sunni muslims.

My own experience is with Shiite Muslims. I was born in Iraq and in the 80s we moved to Lebanon, the in the 90s moved to the west.

In Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, there is a mix of Sunni and Shiite. If you don't know about them, then you should know one thing: Sunni and Shiite hate each other more than they hate other religions (despite what's being spread in the west, Islam is not a 'religion of peace'. It's the only religion where war is built into their holy book, Mohammed was a violent war-lord and Islam is a very intolerant religion). Shiite (which include Hesbollah in Lebanon) are competing for power with Sunni and christians. In the last 50 year or so they've had an Imam decree to reproduce as much as possible in order to take power in the countries that they reside. In Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, they used to be minorities (Shiite have always been the majority in Iran). In the 60s in Lebanon, Christians were about 60%, Sunni were about 25% and Shiite were about 13%. Now, Christians are about 30% (out-breeded and chased away), Sunni are about 20% and Shiite about 48%. In Lebanon (and I heard, second hand, in Syria and Iraq) Shiite still reproduce like rabbits for the purpose of becoming the majority.

There, they do have a religion-mandated very high fertility rate. Not the sunni mind you, the shiite specifically. For a while in the 90s the average Shiite woman had about 10 children and a large minority had even more around 15 children. And yes, they married them as soon as they bled whenever possible. I think that now they're within striking distance from their goal of being an absolute majority, they've scaled back to 6 children per woman.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play
Updated:

@Friar Dave

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.

REP

@helmut_meukel

this knowledge doesn't imply comprehension of the learned.


Rote learning is not common except for a few things, such as a list of words. Most people comprehend what they learn.

She was an apprentice and could cite all when asked, but she was unable to apply the knowledge to her daily work.


and I bet she was able to pass tests on what she knew. Such as an IQ test.

Replies:   John Demille
John Demille

@REP

and I bet she was able to pass tests on what she knew. Such as an IQ test.


Nope. You very obviously have no clue what an IQ test is.

It doesn't matter how much you know. In an IQ test you have to figure things out. They don't ask you knowledge questions about things you can memorize.

You have to figure out the answers by thinking about them and how fast you can do it is a very important factor. Many of the problems posed can be solved by anyone given enough time. Speed is very crucial.

Take a test just for the hell of it, if only to not look ridiculous when you comment about IQ tests.

REP
Updated:

@John Demille


It doesn't matter how much you know.

In an IQ test you have to figure things out.


Which part of needing a knowledge base in order to 'figure things out' have you failed to understand? Do you think people just create the proper answers with no fundamental knowledge of the question being asked?

I took an IQ test many years ago and the result was well over 100.

John Demille

@REP

Do you think people just create the proper answers with no fundamental knowledge of the question being asked?

I took an IQ test many years ago and the result was well over 100.


Your answers and comments on this forum lead me to doubt you've ever seen an IQ test.

Replies:   REP
REP

@John Demille

It is always good to question things.

Of course your personal beliefs color your conclusion, and a closed mind usually continues down the path it was on when evidence to the contrary is encountered. Your comments in this and prior thread have shown me that you believe what you want to believe and adamantly adhere to those beliefs.

awnlee jawking

@REP

I took an IQ test many years ago and the result was well over 100.


Over Christmas, my newspaper printed a test that applicants had to pass to work at Bletchley Park as a wartime codebreaker.

It was mostly a pretty standard IQ test, although some of the questions required a VERY good command of English, but the real killer was a cryptic crossword which applicants had to solve in ten minutes. It was the ultimate anti-working class filter - familiarity was required of military ranks and their holders, politicians, nobility, and the sort of pastimes that working-class folk wouldn't have indulged in.

AJ

Ernest Bywater

@John Demille

It doesn't matter how much you know. In an IQ test you have to figure things out. They don't ask you knowledge questions about things you can memorize.


Actually, most IQ tests ask questions based on the society and culture you're in. Although today it's not so critical as it used to be. But there are still people who wouldn't understand an IQ question that requires them to know how much money is in a dime or how much a Golden Eagle is work, and many who have no idea of how many pennies in a pound. here in Australia a college is totally different to what they call a college in the USA, although that difference gap is now closing.

All that means you need a knowledge base relevant to the actual IQ test you're taking or an IQ test relevant to your knowledge base.

Ross at Play

@John Demille

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.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

I think that is accurate.


You just contradicted yourself. If you improve your knowledge base by memorising more, you will improve your score on the test.

In the UK, rich parents hire coaches to help their little darlings pass the 11-plus exam, a form of IQ test.

AJ

Replies:   John Demille
John Demille

@awnlee jawking

You just contradicted yourself. If you improve your knowledge base by memorising more, you will improve your score on the test.


For shits ang giggles, here is an IQ test that everybody here can try. IQ tests are variations on these thing.

Answer randomly just to see what type of questions they are. It's the first one you get when you google free iq test:

http://www.free-iqtest.net/

awnlee jawking

@John Demille

No thanks, I'm not applying for a job with your company.

AJ

Ernest Bywater

@John Demille

For shits ang giggles, here is an IQ test that everybody here can try.


It's interesting they have to know your gender and date of birth first - which shows they'll bias the test in certain ways.

Replies:   John Demille
John Demille

@Ernest Bywater

It's interesting they have to know your gender and date of birth first - which shows they'll bias the test in certain ways.


That's because IQ test compare you to people of the same age. I don't know why they asked about the gender though.

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin

@John Demille

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.

helmut_meukel

@John Demille

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.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  John Demille
sharkjcw

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.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  REP
Not_a_ID

@sharkjcw

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.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@helmut_meukel


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...

John Demille

@helmut_meukel

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.


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

I didn't look for the next questions, one crap question was enough to stop me.


That's a lot of mental contortions you're going to to poopoo IQ tests.

I can understand why people don't like IQ tests. Everybody has a certain mental image of themselves and it rarely includes below average or even average intelligence. In taking an IQ test they might risk finding out that reality doesn't live up to the image they have of themselves.

By the way, online IQ test are all crap as IQ tests need to be standardized in order to compare people correctly. Googling 'Free IQ test' gives you at least ten different sites with ten different IQ tests and if you take them all you're definitely going to get ten different IQ results.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  helmut_meukel  REP
helmut_meukel

@Not_a_ID

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.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@John Demille


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)

helmut_meukel

@John Demille

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.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Not_a_ID

@helmut_meukel

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.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@helmut_meukel

the last IQ test I took ...

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

awnlee jawking

@Not_a_ID

For a sex story site, you're all pretty slow! The answer is obviously lion because it's the only one where a quick glimpse is enough to reveal the animal's gender :)

AJ

Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

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?

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

What about the trans lions?


I think they're more dangerous than saturated lions.

AJ

Dominions Son

@awnlee jawking

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.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
REP

@sharkjcw

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.

Replies:   Ross at Play
REP

@John Demille

if you take them all you're definitely going to get ten different IQ results.


That is why IQ tests are basically useless.

Everyone of those sites believe their test is valid. Every company that generates such a test has a way to make money, directly or indirectly, from the their test. None of them will want to standardize IQ tests.

Ross at Play

@REP

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.

Replies:   Dominions Son
awnlee jawking

@Dominions Son

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

Walt Disney

robberhands

@awnlee jawking

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!

Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

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

Dominions Son

@Ross at Play

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.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Dominions Son

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.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  Dominions Son
Not_a_ID

@Ross at Play

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.

Dominions Son
Updated:

@Ross at Play


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.

Replies:   Ross at Play
REP

The IQ score is based on how much you know relative to how much the average person in your age group knows. If you look at the raw scores that means in an age group the higher the raw score the higher the IQ score.

Now if an older group of people were to take the same test, they should have higher raw scores for their additional years should result in them acquiring a higher level of knowledge. For their age group the raw score for an average IQ (i.e., 100) would be higher than the raw score for the younger age group's average IQ.

I don't understand why a person's sex would have a bearing on their IQ score, but it may be possible. Perhaps females have a different outlook on education than males, so females of the same age group acquire more (or less) knowledge than their male counterparts.

Ross at Play

@Dominions Son

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?

Replies:   Not_a_ID  Dominions Son
Not_a_ID

@Ross at Play

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.

Dominions Son

@Ross at Play

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.

Replies:   Ross at Play  Not_a_ID
Ross at Play

@Dominions Son

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.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son

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.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Dominions Son

@Ross at Play

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.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Not_a_ID

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.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@Dominions Son

@ 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. :-)

sejintenej

Simple question from the old 11+ exam in England for children aged 11 years:

What is the next number after 1; 2; 5; 10; 20; 50;

The original question (harder) was 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 30 (there are two possible answers - why?)

This is NOT appropriate for Americans.

PotomacBob

@Not_a_ID

(Unless they're being funded up the ____)


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

Back to Top