Active Now

Randy D
Discussion » Questions » Emotions » Is there a dumb gene?

Is there a dumb gene?

Posted - February 11


  • 10739
    I said nothing about the rate of intelligence. It's a finite amount, getting spread thinner by the generation. Any x divided by y + 1000000 is going to be smaller than x divided by y. Unless y=0.
      February 14, 2020 1:00 AM MST

  • 4283

    I accept that a constant means something not variable, occurring continuously over a period of time,
    a situation that does not change.

    But I don't accept that the total amount of intelligence is a fixed quantity that becomes diluted as the population booms.

    Rather, I think the percentage of intelligence remains constant no matter what size the population grows to. This idea is based on the developing research into the nature of intelligence since the 1950's.

    However, I'll freely acknowledge that that's a pittance of time compared to how long it has taken human cultures and thinking to evolve, and psychology itself is only an infant compared to other studies such as astronomy, mathematics and physics.
      February 14, 2020 8:47 AM MST

  • 4283
    In one sense, yes.
    We're all born so dumb that we couldn't learn to survive without help from fellow humans.

    On the other hand, the normally healthy human brain is immensely adaptable and capable of learning throughout life.

    There are some genetic mutations which are known to cause intellectual disabilities, such as Downs Syndrome.
    ADD and ADHD show a strong genetic link through family lines, reinforced by twin studies - however, these can also be caused by smoking during pregnancy or by brain damage.

    Studies show that the major factors affecting good mental capacity are good health and a stimulating environment.
    For instance, kids born into a home which has a musical instrument and more than fifty books are far more likely to turn out gifted than those with less. Homes which have these show a positive attitude to education and actively support learning. This post was edited by inky at February 13, 2020 3:43 PM MST
      February 12, 2020 5:57 PM MST

  • 13469
    I can't think of any other reason for it.  
      February 12, 2020 8:46 PM MST

  • 1709
    Thank you. :)
      February 13, 2020 11:00 AM MST

  • 46201
    You can be totally stupid and don't have to blame it on genes.  

    Genes can cause one to be stupid, but people can be stupid despite all evidence to the contrary.

    Look at fools who have everything and waste it on some bimbo that takes them for every cent.   The emotional body is the one that is more responsible for STUPID behavior than any High or low IQ or gene pool advantage or disadvantage.

    People have very underdeveloped emotional bodies.  Just look at all the stupid romantic movies out for our entertainment.  We stay at this low level of love like that is all there is.    Instead of looking for love, we need to be studying HOW to LOVE and what that means.
      February 13, 2020 1:00 PM MST

  • 4283
    How do we define dumb?

    I believe the word should be restricted to describing people who can't speak - which has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.
    However, what I prefer will never influence our language.

    I have to accept that, colloquially and frequently, "dumb" is a derogatory word for people who are considered stupid. Which raises the next question.

    Is stupidity a subjective perception or a fact?
    I'd say it can be either or both depending on who's speaking, who they're speaking about, and the circumstances.

    Too often, "dumb" or stupid is what we call people when we are angry with them. It means we're going into judgement, blame, accusations, criticism. It can be for all sorts of reasons: disagreement in values, beliefs or politics; perception of an easily avoidable error or of a seeming lack of tact or practicality, and so on.

    If the accusation is based on disagreement, I would argue that it is unfair.
    In general, even if a value, belief or political orientation turns out to be dysfunctional, the person who holds it may frequently turn out to be highly intelligent because of the way humans can so easily compartmentalise the way they think.
    If it's based on avoidable error, the accusation remains unfair because even the brightest people in the world still make mistakes and most people make several mistakes every day, often so minor that the cumulative consequences can go unnoticed for a long time.

    Which is why psychology has spent so much time studying intelligence.
    The type of person we are most likely to say has common sense is someone with emotional intelligence.
    The emotionally intelligent person can exhibit self-control and patience at the age of four, already able to defer an immediate pleasure for the sake of a greater one later.
    This type develops a theory-of-mind at a very early age, capable of deep empathy, and able to understand that self and others think and feel differently. They learn early how to relate well with others. They develop an understanding of social mores, signals and behaviours which becomes increasingly complex, nuanced and accurate as they grow older.
    In all cultures, places and eras, they are the ones most likely to succeed well in life, even if not so well developed in other types of intelligence. 

    The other types of intelligence include logical (inc mathematics and music), linguistic, creative, mechanical-technical, visual-spatial, and proprioceptive.
    Any person can have one or more of these. A lucky few do well in all of them.
    But in all, early signs of aptitude are often dependent on environmental influences and opportunities in early childhood, and how much time is spent in practice, either as play or with a deliberate sense of purpose.

    But if we went back to the old fashioned Western definition of intelligence, the one based on IQ tests, we could look at "stupidity" in a different way.
    After much testing, a standard of 100 was set to represent the intelligence level occupied by the largest number of people. One hundred was thus described as normal, average, or the mean.
    By this standard, the average person can handle most adult functions well enough to be independent, reasonably competent most of the time and responsible enough to look after dependents.
    It takes only an average of 105 to get into uni. At this level most drop out before the end of the first year - 'though this is also affected by age, motivation and willingness to be proactive about study and learning. Those who succeed at uni more often measure 110 or above.
    However, another way of looking at the bell curve (which was pointed out to me by a friend who was a top criminal psychologist for forty years) is that half the population fall below the median line of the bell curve.
    This means that one in every two people we meet will be stupid according to standard intelligence testing.
    This is probably why politicians and advertisers can so easily get away with relying on slogans to influence very large numbers of people.

    A grim picture.

    This post was edited by inky at February 14, 2020 8:39 PM MST
      February 13, 2020 3:26 PM MST

  • 4283
    Thanks for the pick, Cosmic. :)

    How are you going?

      February 14, 2020 3:30 PM MST

  • 1175
    I have somewhat of a quibble with your construct that low intelligence leads people to be easily manipulated by politicians and advertisers.

    The capacity for people to be influenced by social pressures, propaganda, motivated cognition, and so forth is independent of IQ-type intellect. In fact, some work by the psychologist Dan Kahan suggests it is "smart" people (in the IQ-like sense) who are most capable of self-delusion when motivated to hold beliefs contrary to discernible reality.

    For example. one book about the downfall of Enron Corp. is titled The Smartest Guys in the Room, because Enron's senior management was full of very intelligent people with advanced degrees in various disciplines. But, because of the incentive structures which guided both people within the company, and the incentives structures to which the company responded as it operated in the business world, Enron spent the better part of a decade borrowing much more money than it should have and spending that money on very poor investments.

    There was one executive at Enron, chief operating officer Rich Kinder, who had enough power and enough intellectual firepower to keep the rest of Enron from (in Kinder's words) "smoking their own dope." Once he left (because exceptionally brilliant (yet "stupid") Jeff Skilling was named CEO instead of Kinder), Enron went on a debt-and-spending jag like a 6-year-old with an AMEX Black card.

    Yes, genetics matters. But environments push people to do "smart" or "stupid" things much more than we care to admit.
      February 14, 2020 4:31 PM MST

  • 4283
    Hmm. I agree.
    I believe the environment has a profound effect at all ages;
    it is as easy for the mind to atrophy when not exercised as it is for muscles.

      February 21, 2020 10:50 AM MST

  • 1175
    I just remember that the author of another book about Enron's rise and fall summed it up well.

    He noted that Enron's management was smart enough to evade, bend, and break (without being discovered) the rules which were there to protect public companies like Enron from mismanagement and fraud, but NOT wise enough to understand why the rules were originally put into place.
      February 21, 2020 2:03 PM MST

  • 46201
    I can define it.  

    Take this  PICTURE of OUR LEADER as  below the bottom rung of  the ladder to represent stupid beyond measure and start climbing from there.  You will have to START climbing, even if it is just an inch or so, because NO ONE is as stupid as this turd from a demented Clown's hind-end.   He is beyond stupid because he thinks it is cute to BE stupid.  That is beyond measure to me.  He thinks its an honor to be in his circle.  So, if you have a head that bobbles up and down no matter what?   You are at the bottom rungs, but not as pathetic as the fecal matter that is commanding you to admire him.  No one is this stupid.  Maybe Guiliani is.  He might be even lower, actually.  Is insane a disqualifier?

    This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at February 14, 2020 8:39 PM MST
      February 14, 2020 4:40 PM MST

  • 6948
    Some of the opinions found on Q & A sites certainly suggest the likelihood that such a gene exits.
      February 14, 2020 1:49 AM MST

  • 46201
    LOL  You think? 
      February 14, 2020 4:34 PM MST

  • 46201
    This is the dumbest, most repulsive Gene I have had the displeasure to have to see on TV or on the airwaves.  ICK.  Everything that comes out of this animal's mouth, I despise.  He is a low life.  

    He even looks like a pig.   And he supports TRUMP.  It figures.  

    Below is from a disgruntled ex-fan.   I don't think this is enough for me to hate him like I do.  I know he is a mysogynist and has no class.  I had to see him prance around on his own TV show when he was on years ago.  I always had to turn the channel because he was such a jerk.  Very much like Trump.  Always thinking the world revolves around him.  And what is that thing he is married to?  UGH.  

     He is a racist and ignorant moron

    During his run on A&E’s Gene Simmons’ Family JewelsGene Simmons told his son that he shouldn’t try to fix his own car, because that’s “what gentiles are for”. In other words, Gene said that goym, the non-Jews, are made for manual labor, to serve the Jewish people. You have to wonder whether while he was kissing the ass of the Christian Right, the chutzpah of which went unnoticed, Gene remembered that he was talking to gentiles.  

    Imagine if he had been more specific on his racist remarks, targeting only blacks, instead of all non-jews. Would we be OK with him if he had said “that’s what blacks are for”? What about “that’s what Chinese are for”?

    Of course, this is far from being Gene‘s only racist remark; after all, he has gone on the record calling Muslims “a vile culture” (he then backtracked and pretended that he had only meant extremists). Simmons is just so massively ignorant about everything around him (but surrounds himself with enough “yes men” to believe otherwise) that he has expressed his disdain at anybody opposing Israel‘s war crimes in the occupied territories; has praised the siege of the Gaza Strip (called by Richard Falk, UN’s Special Rapporteur a “crime against humanity” and deemed illegal by every human right organization), advocated bombing Iran and attacked both the UN and the Obama administration for not standing behind Israel on everything.

    Gene’s remarkably moronic criticisms of Obama, a man I’m not fond of, included that he had no right to “dictate” policies for Israel, because he didn’t live there (also an analogy about the moon that is so incredibly stupid that it needs to be seen to be believed). Of course, neither does Gene, who actually waited a good 51 years before even visiting his country of birth; but that didn’t stop him from claiming that Israel was his home, and that he was always “a stranger in America”. For Gene it’s all about whoever it is that he’s trying to exploit. You know, just like a psychopath

    Although from time to time Gene shows his true nature, the fact of the matter is that for a big chunk of his career he didn’t demonstrate how much of a gigantic turd he was. The reasons for this are obvious, after all

    This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at February 14, 2020 11:18 PM MST
      February 14, 2020 11:09 PM MST

  • 10739
    Give the guy a break. He eats fire and pukes blood for a living.
      February 21, 2020 9:32 PM MST