Were children smarter a century ago?

[emberjed]

<p>I don’t see much of a problem with Beliavsky’s reasoning, formally or informally. I posit that it’s not he who needs to learn to change his viewpoint in the face of contrary evidence.</p>

[Philovitist]

<p>His view that LGBT resources in elite schools is making the world a dumber place is complete bull and he knows it.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

but they should understand since IQ is highly heritable, the offspring of two scientists are more likely to make scientific discoveries or to make big contributions in other fields than children in general. Therefore they should weigh their own potential contributions against those that would be made by their children.

</p>

<p>Gosh, one of my highly-educated / high-IQ girlfriends went ahead and procreated, and wound up with a child with Down syndrome (she was mid-twenties at the time, so it wasn’t an “advanced age” scenario). Good thing her rationale for having this child was simply that she wanted to have another child, because what a disappointment it would have been if she’d been trying to do her part to increase society’s IQ and failed in her mission. (/sarcasm)</p>

[TonyK]

<p>I haven’t read this entire thread so this may already have been mentioned before.They misspelled endeavor on the spelling words section.</p>

[ecouter11]

<p>

Both my son and daughter-in-law are scientists. Both seem to me to have the potential to do quite a lot for the common good. Maybe their research helps create an environment where people get smarter If one of them leaves the lab to concentrate on childcare, society probably loses a couple of decades of good research. Having children, even with full-time live-in childcare, will be a distraction from their work. They are both really smart. Is it a greater good if they procreate or if they stay in the lab? Is it reasonable to expect them to do both?

</p>

<p>Haha, I often think about this. I feel like Belivasky assumes average output/highly education individual.Plus, we’re also making the assumption that the larger political climate and geopolitical situation will stay the same. Who knows how many resources will be available in future years? I am not terribly optimistic about the world.</p>

<p>Most people in my extended family have one to three children (coming from a family of 7 siblings). Scientists do not make a great deal of money, compared to other careers, for whatever reason. The more children you have, the less amount of money you will be able to devote to each child (college fund, extracurricular activities, trips) which if concentrated on one or two, could be of better use. I can’t comment on happiness - I imagine it’s rewarding to see someone you cared for succeed but for other individuals, their work may give them more happiness.</p>

<p>I still think there’s lots of wasted talent. We don’t know what the true baseline is, so why not work on that, first? Plus, there are many ways to categorize intelligence. My school uses the Theory of Multiple Intelligences which says people can be gifted in many realms: visual, interpersonal, quantitative etc. </p>

<p>I guess this is more of a debate on the rights of the individual vs obligations to society. I think children should be borne only if they are truly desired and in a good situation. I know there are many conservative cultures that do not require people as adults until they get married and reproduce. (Perhaps this is also present in Western society, albeit less so.) This standard has been harmful for many people, which is why I err on the side of the individual.</p>

<p>I don’t really know. I think, if/when this happens to me or my friends, we’ll end up playing it by ear, just like everyone else, for better or for worse. Marie Curie had two kids and two Nobels so I guess it worked out for her.</p>

[alh]

<p>

Scientists do not make a great deal of money, compared to other careers, for whatever reason. The more children you have, the less amount of money you will be able to devote to each child (college fund, extracurricular activities, trips) which if concentrated on one or two, could be of better use.

</p>

<p>Exactly. Beliavsky seems to suggest scientists should be having larger families. Regardless of how this detracts from their output – can scientists afford to raise large families? There are fewer and fewer opportunities in academia, less and less funding available. How many children will we advise two post-docs to have? How much will they need to spend on childcare and how much will they need to save for college? At the same time they are possibly still paying off their own student loans?</p>

<p>I don’t see how you get around the economics of the situation even if one of the scientists decides to be a stay at home parent.</p>

<p>Maybe scientists in the private sector can afford large families?</p>

<p>-and as PG so correctly points out once we begin having children all our best laid plans can pretty much go out the window.</p>

[SpacemanEd]

<p>To me, knowledge is telling the right facts. Intelligence is asking the right questions.</p>

[Ninhja]

<p>Lol, since when did spelling, history, and geography questions indicate true intelligence?</p>

[Descuff]

<p>Depends on how you define intelligence. I always thought of intelligence as merely smart…</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@alh

Maybe scientists in the private sector can afford large families?

</p>

<p>Two computer scientists, perhaps*. Two biologists, less likely.</p>

<p>*But then that may increase the risk of enough autism in the offspring that causes one or more of them to have difficulty functioning in typical society.</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@ucbalumnus

Two computer scientists, perhaps*. Two biologists, less likely.</p>

<p>*But then that may increase the risk of enough autism in the offspring that causes one or more of them to have difficulty functioning in typical society.

</p>

<p>Maybe the optimal level of left-brainedness to function in society, especially at work, has increased, as evidenced by the improving job market in CS compared to biology.</p>

[Spislaa]

<p>We have become more interdependent, each person only really being able to specialize in one thing, this could be really bad if our society collapses</p>

[Descuff]

<p>How is each person only able to specialize in one thing?</p>