Why do we think that people earn higher degrees to earn more money?  Maybe
the love of learning and understanding drives them.  

arthur

-----Original Message-----
From: William B Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 8:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bifurcation?


Harry,

I have been associated with some good schools and some mediocre ones and
can attest that doctoral degrees are more a measure of tenacity than any
basic intelligence. Why is it that Michael Dell and Bill Gates could drop
out as undergraduates and do so well? In fact, Gates dropped out a year
earlier than Dell which might account for why he is doing so well.  What
do the say?: 'A' students teach 'B' students to work for 'C' students.  

For those interested in higher ed, here is a sobering column:

       
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/04/Columns/New_system_has_higher.shtml

Bill Ward

On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:01:51 -0700 Harry Pollard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Keith,
> 
> Heinlein wrote about this in a short story - the marching Morons - 
> in which 
> the speedometers of the cars showed 70 - but the car was only going 
> 30. As 
> I recall, the world was being run - to protect the low IQs - from an 
> 
> underground complex under Antarctica.
> 
> That must have been 20-30 years ago.
> 
> Yet, it's just science-fiction.
> 
> The professional class are trapped in their necessary debts - 
> mortgage, 
> insurance, university costs. They can't really get out from under - 
> at 
> least not while they feel responsibilities on their backs.
> 
> Also, IQ's are not everything. Many PhD's are hired by people who 
> haven't 
> finished high school.
> 
> I remember some years ago a Canadian article that pointed out that 
> not one 
> of the Canadian bank presidents across the Dominion had completed 
> university. (How do you like Dominion, fellers!)
> 
> Some might say: "So that's why we have the problems."
> 
> True or not, I think that high IQ's as related to professional 
> competence 
> are not the be all, and end all, of the discussion.
> 
> There are certainly gradations of competence, no matter the IQ or 
> the 
> educational qualifications, of people. Maybe - and here's a thought 
> - there 
> are super-people who really keep everything going in spite of the 
> less than 
> competent majority of high IQ's.
> 
> I had better stop. I'm frightening myself.
> 
> Harry
> ___________________________________________
> 
> Keith wrote:
> 
> >Mike,
> >
> >At 09:34 01/10/02 -0600, you wrote:
> >(KH)
> > >> The one big argument against this bifurcation becoming 
> permanent is
> > >> demographic -- that inter-racial mixing (and thus inter-IQ) 
> mixing due to
> > >> immigration is occurring at a faster rate than physical (and 
> breeding)
> > >> separation (hitherto required for speciation). It is clearly 
> true that
> > >> high-IQ parents at the present time are having fewer children at 
> far less
> > >> than replacement rates (and so are all other parents in 
> developed
> > >> countries). Nevertheless, the pace of innovation means that 
> high-IQ
> > >> individuals with high level technocratic skills is becoming 
> increasingly
> > >> required. One result of this seems to be that income 
> differentials are
> > >> growing within developed countries.
> >(MH)
> > >What about the regression to the mean?  Not all children of
> > >high IQ parents have high IQs and not all children of low IQ 
> parents
> > >have low IQs.
> >
> >Yes, I'm fully aware of this -- and it's yet another factor which I 
> should
> >have mentioned when I talked of differential demographic trends 
> which are
> >tending to reduce the average IQ of a population. However, it's the 
> latter
> >trend which is more important at present, and my hypothesis implies 
> that
> >the present situation of differential replacement rates (as between 
> high-IQ
> >and others) is not necessarily permanent.
> >
> >One doesn't have to speculate too wildly to suppose that at some 
> period in
> >the future (due to higher energy costs or climatic change or some 
> other
> >factor) survival will be much more difficult than now. For the last 
> 100
> >years or so, mankind has had an exceptionally comfortable time due 
> to
> >fossil fuels.
> >
> >Leaving that on one side for the moment, I think we can say with 
> reasonable
> >certainty that embryo selection (e-s) will continue apace for three
> >reasons: (a) as a byproduct of IVF for infertile couples, (b) 
> elective e-s
> >for avoiding deleterious alleles, and (c) selective e-s for 
> desirable genes
> >or gene clusters. This by itself will tend to be adopted by the 
> high-IQ
> >portion of the population rather than the low IQs for reasons of 
> both
> >finance and more purposeful parentage.
> >
> >Let's also assume that biogenetics will enable selected embryos to 
> be taken
> >right through fetus stage and then to full term in vitro! This is 
> not
> >improbable. This is almost certainly a lesser problem than the 
> selection of
> >high-IQ gene clusters (or other chosen traits) which is probably 
> more
> >distant. Now let me return to the likelihood of a period of great 
> economic
> >stress. In my opinion, high-IQ mothers (that is, those who tend to 
> have
> >interesting, well-paid jobs) would readily revert to the 
> aristocratic
> >practices of the past in delegating the upbringing of their 
> children to
> >nurses (who are likely to be relatively lowly paid). In that 
> situation,
> >high-IQ parents could have a large number of children without 
> personal
> >inconvenience, and thus reverse the present differential 
> replacement rates.
> >(It has astonished me in England to see how quickly the 
> middling-rich have
> >taken to employ au pairs and nursery nurses in recent years.)
> >
> >Now all this may seem highly speculative, depending on too many 
> "ifs" but
> >if you believe, as I do, for one or other of several probable 
> reasons, that
> >harder times *are* coming and yet, at the same time, high-IQ people 
> (as
> >everybody else, of course) want to retain the standards and 
> luxuries that
> >they have at present, then it's vitally necessary that society as a 
> whole
> >is able to maintain its high-tech systems. It isn't inevitable, of 
> course
> >-- I suppose it's conceivable that high-IQ people might say (of 
> their
> >higher-responsibility jobs -- and working longer hours than anybody 
> else
> >[as now seems to be occurring] ) "the game isn't worth the candle" 
> and give
> >up, and thus society as a whole winds down to lower levels of 
> skills and
> >standard of existence relevant to the newer circumstances (as, say
> >Australian aborigines when game animals were wiped out and in their
> >subsequent simpler environment -- and Tasmanians even more so.)
> >
> >However, I suggest that this would not happen. Even if the high-IQ 
> portion
> >of the population decided to give up the burden of supporting all 
> the rest,
> >they would not cut off their own noses. They would use every trick 
> in the
> >book to so arrange government and society so that they, at least,
> >maintained a high standard of living -- and also that they would be
> >self-sustaining in numbers.
> >
> >(MH)
> > >Also, there is more to intelligence and effectiveness
> > >than what is measured by IQ.  The neurobiologist William Calvin 
> in "A Brain
> > >For All Seasons" argues that sudden coolings of climate selected 
> for humans
> > >and societies best able to share and collaborate, which suggests 
> that
> > >Gardners Interpersonal Intelligence may be man's most important 
> selected
> > >trait, not capacity for abstract reasoning.
> >
> >This may very well have been important, and even crucial at these
> >particular times of sudden coolings. But unless this Gardner factor 
> is
> >measurable we will never know. It's more likely in my opinion that 
> this
> >factor would be correlated to a greater or lesser extent with the 
> general
> >g-factor measured by IQ tests, inherited and selected over very 
> long
> >evolutionary periods even before the emergence of homo sapiens.
> >
> > >Why the concern over a sudden cooling?  Because that is what may 
> happen.
> > >Climatologists have been puzzled by the sudden severe little ice 
> age
> > >of the Younger Dryas 12,500 BP to 12,000 BP but have finally 
> figured
> > >out how they think it happened.  They are brought on by warmings 
> that
> > >melt sufficient ice to flood the North Atlantic with fresh water 
> and
> > >stop the Atlantic Conveyor and hence the Gulf Stream, which keeps 
> Europe
> > >and Eastern North America warm in winter.  They have also figured 
> out from
> > >ice cores that similar sudden coolings have happened hundreds of 
> times
> > >before. Each time human populations would have crashed - been 
> heavily
> > >selected - for cooperation in the face of great adversity.
> > >
> > >The Woods Hole Oceanographic has been keeping track of the 
> salinity of
> > >the North Atlantic and is now sounding the alarm that it has 
> fallen
> > >far enough to be concerned about a Conveyor stoppage.
> > >http://www.whoi.edu/home/about/whatsnew_abruptclimate.html
> > >
> > >How severe it might be is another question.  They are suggesting 
> an annual
> > >average drop for Europe of 5 degrees F, enough to freeze ports 
> and
> > >shipping lanes and cause crops to fail.
> > >
> > >That would be more severe than the Little Ice Age, so I am 
> sceptical. Severe
> > >sudden coolings in the past were associated with deglaciation, so 
> the
> > >amounts of fresh water involved were enormous, much larger than 
> Greenland
> > >and Arctic sea ice could produce today. What may be more likely 
> according
> > >to two Swiss climatologists (Stockner and Schmittner) is a 
> slowing of the
> > >Conveyor with occasional brief cessations of one of the three 
> downwelling
> > >sites.  That would lead to a slight cooling trend with short 
> somewhat
> > >cooler variations from trend.
> > >
> > >As always, there are other data to muddy the waters.  These 
> sudden coolings,
> > >at least for the past 10,000 years that we have data, are also 
> coincident
> > >with reductions in the amount of energy radiated by the sun.  
> Right now
> > >solar radiation is in an up cycle.
> > >
> > >Ain't life interesting.
> >
> >The above comments on the Conveyor effect are extremely 
> interesting.  I was
> >aware of it, of course, but haven't been as closely in touch with
> >discussion about it as you've obviously been.
> >
> >Keith
> >
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> >------------
> >
> >Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com
> >6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
> >Tel: +44 1225 312622;  Fax: +44 1225 447727; 
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >---
> >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 9/19/2002
> 
> ******************************
> Harry Pollard
> Henry George School of LA
> Box 655
> Tujunga  CA  91042
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tel: (818) 352-4141
> Fax: (818) 353-2242
> *******************************
> 
> 

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

Reply via email to