Trumpism is not logical

[LuckyR]

PS it is also severely susceptible to a range of confounding factors, such as deprivation, poverty and intelligence.

Such bland and misconceived statements reveal more about the class prejudice of the poster than any real facts of society.

This post might make sense if this was a theory of mine, instead of peer reviewed research.

[Sculptor1]

PS it is also severely susceptible to a range of confounding factors, such as deprivation, poverty and intelligence.

Such bland and misconceived statements reveal more about the class prejudice of the poster than any real facts of society.

This post might make sense if this was a theory of mine, instead of peer reviewed research.

I seem to remember that you were the originator of the confused comment which you have yet to clarify. And you have yet to offer substantial "peer reviewed" evidence for it.
So are you will to withdrawal your original statement?

[Sculptor1]

PS
Here is what you actually said..

"...in the Modern era, educational level is specifically, selected against genetically."

[LuckyR]

PS it is also severely susceptible to a range of confounding factors, such as deprivation, poverty and intelligence.

Such bland and misconceived statements reveal more about the class prejudice of the poster than any real facts of society.

This post might make sense if this was a theory of mine, instead of peer reviewed research.

I seem to remember that you were the originator of the confused comment which you have yet to clarify. And you have yet to offer substantial "peer reviewed" evidence for it.
So are you will to withdrawal your original statement?

Not so much.

I clarified it several posts ago thusly: "Well if educated folks have fewer children, their genetic material is passed along at a lower rate in successive generations. If you want to use different terms to describe this phenomenon I'm OK with that".

[AverageBozo]

PS it is also severely susceptible to a range of confounding factors, such as deprivation, poverty and intelligence.

Such bland and misconceived statements reveal more about the class prejudice of the poster than any real facts of society.

This post might make sense if this was a theory of mine, instead of peer reviewed research.

I seem to remember that you were the originator of the confused comment which you have yet to clarify. And you have yet to offer substantial "peer reviewed" evidence for it.
So are you will to withdrawal your original statement?

Not so much.

I clarified it several posts ago thusly: "Well if educated folks have fewer children, their genetic material is passed along at a lower rate in successive generations. If you want to use different terms to describe this phenomenon I'm OK with that".

Couldn’t it be that because of poverty, pregnancy and poor role models in the home, education is pursued to a lesser extent than for those without the same challenges?

If so, DNA might not be involved at all.

[AverageBozo]

AB, I find most just say something like 'well how come they didn't persecute this other politician' (as if somehow two wrongs make a right), or something to the effect that 'well I just like him' to preserve their so-called belief system. As such, to be brutally honest, their belief system may/may not include hidden feelings of racism, anger, fear, misogyny, power and greed. In other words, they either consciously or unconsciously identify with the ideology and persona of the person. It could be something as simple as 'I like the way he looks (John F Kennedy), or 'I can identify with him cause I had an affair too'. Indeed, stranger things have happened here! And, that all goes back to why people do what they do and the feelings/emotions surrounding or associated with decision making.

The justification for endorsing an evil clown that I hear most often is, “He tells it like it is.” IOW he is insensitive, rude and undiplomatic, and that gives permission to his followers to do the same.

[Sculptor1]

PS it is also severely susceptible to a range of confounding factors, such as deprivation, poverty and intelligence.

Such bland and misconceived statements reveal more about the class prejudice of the poster than any real facts of society.

This post might make sense if this was a theory of mine, instead of peer reviewed research.

I seem to remember that you were the originator of the confused comment which you have yet to clarify. And you have yet to offer substantial "peer reviewed" evidence for it.
So are you will to withdrawal your original statement?

Not so much.

I clarified it several posts ago thusly: "Well if educated folks have fewer children, their genetic material is passed along at a lower rate in successive generations. If you want to use different terms to describe this phenomenon I'm OK with that".

Education and genetics are not the same thing.
When you educate women they adopt contraception, lowering the birth rate, they have the same genetics.
That is why your original statement is false.
Education cannot change the genome.

[Sculptor1]

Hence:

Such bland and misconceived statements reveal more about the class prejudice of the poster than any real facts of society.

[Ecurb]

(Original quote) "...in the Modern era, educational level is specifically, selected against genetically."

Education and genetics are not the same thing.
When you educate women they adopt contraception, lowering the birth rate, they have the same genetics.
That is why your original statement is false.
Education cannot change the genome.

The original quote is awkward and unclear, but it's not difficult to figure out what it means. Thanks to Sculptor, though, we now know that education and genetics are not the same thing.

Of course birth-rate and descendant-leaving-success are not identical, and ths study doesn't seem to address that (I read the study very quickly, perhaps I'm, wrong). In Africa -- where the correlation between educational level reached and number of children birthed is most striking, it is likely that poor, uneducated women have children that suffer high infant mortality rates, whereas educated, upper-class women may have children who die infrequently, as they do in the West. Let's posit that uneducated women have 3 children, educated women have 2. Suppose only 65% of children born to the uneducated reach adulthood, and 98% of those born to educated women do. That means that the uneducated women will have 1.95 children (on average) that reach child-bearing age, and the educated women will have 1.96. Who has had greater descendant-leaving-success?

The human Darwinian strategy is to bear fewer children than animals of other species, and put more care into rearing each of them. Are mice "more successful genetically"| than humans? Perhaps they are -- but we cannot assume so based on the average number of babies a female mouse gives birth to.

Temujin (aka Genghis Khan) is reputed to have 16 million descendants living today. This is probably some sort of record, and it would never have happened if he hadn't murdered his older brother (there's a great Cain and Abel story for you). Still, based on the selfish gene theory, even though Behter (the brother) was only a half brother, Genghis did him a genetic favor, since all of those descendants share Behter's genes, too.

[LuckyR]

This post might make sense if this was a theory of mine, instead of peer reviewed research.

I seem to remember that you were the originator of the confused comment which you have yet to clarify. And you have yet to offer substantial "peer reviewed" evidence for it.
So are you will to withdrawal your original statement?

Not so much.

I clarified it several posts ago thusly: "Well if educated folks have fewer children, their genetic material is passed along at a lower rate in successive generations. If you want to use different terms to describe this phenomenon I'm OK with that".

Education and genetics are not the same thing.
When you educate women they adopt contraception, lowering the birth rate, they have the same genetics.
That is why your original statement is false.
Education cannot change the genome.

We are in agreement as far as what you posted. However, any genetic factors that are associated with seeking education will be selected against and unless seeking education is a random event (unlikely by my estimation, but I admit currently unknown), then any future discovered genetic factors that are partially causal to seeking education will also be selected against.

[LuckyR]

This post might make sense if this was a theory of mine, instead of peer reviewed research.

I seem to remember that you were the originator of the confused comment which you have yet to clarify. And you have yet to offer substantial "peer reviewed" evidence for it.
So are you will to withdrawal your original statement?

Not so much.

I clarified it several posts ago thusly: "Well if educated folks have fewer children, their genetic material is passed along at a lower rate in successive generations. If you want to use different terms to describe this phenomenon I'm OK with that".

Couldn’t it be that because of poverty, pregnancy and poor role models in the home, education is pursued to a lesser extent than for those without the same challenges?

If so, DNA might not be involved at all.

While very true, that's a different question. Why do some folks not have access to education? I'm not declaring that there is a documented "education seeking gene". I am commenting on the effect, not the cause. The effect of educated folks having fewer children is that any genes associated with seeking education (WHETHER OR NOT they are causal) will be represented in fewer numbers in successive generations, ie they will be selected against.

[Sculptor1]

(Original quote) "...in the Modern era, educational level is specifically, selected against genetically."

Education and genetics are not the same thing.
When you educate women they adopt contraception, lowering the birth rate, they have the same genetics.
That is why your original statement is false.
Education cannot change the genome.

The original quote is awkward and unclear, but it's not difficult to figure out what it means. Thanks to Sculptor, though, we now know that education and genetics are not the same thing.

Of course birth-rate and descendant-leaving-success are not identical, and ths study doesn't seem to address that (I read the study very quickly, perhaps I'm, wrong). In Africa -- where the correlation between educational level reached and number of children birthed is most striking, it is likely that poor, uneducated women have children that suffer high infant mortality rates, whereas educated, upper-class women may have children who die infrequently, as they do in the West. Let's posit that uneducated women have 3 children, educated women have 2. Suppose only 65% of children born to the uneducated reach adulthood, and 98% of those born to educated women do. That means that the uneducated women will have 1.95 children (on average) that reach child-bearing age, and the educated women will have 1.96. Who has had greater descendant-leaving-success?

Gosh I think I already said as much in one sentence without the idle speculation.

The human Darwinian strategy is to bear fewer children than animals of other species, and put more care into rearing each of them. Are mice "more successful genetically"| than humans? Perhaps they are -- but we cannot assume so based on the average number of babies a female mouse gives birth to.

Humans do not have a Darwinian strategy.
They mostly get married and most have some children according to cultural, personal, and social decisions.

Temujin (aka Genghis Khan) is reputed to have 16 million descendants living today. This is probably some sort of record, and it would never have happened if he hadn't murdered his older brother (there's a great Cain and Abel story for you). Still, based on the selfish gene theory, even though Behter (the brother) was only a half brother, Genghis did him a genetic favor, since all of those descendants share Behter's genes, too.

You are totally misunderstood the idea about Genghis Khan. It's nothing more than a mathematical model, nothing at all to do with progeny.

[Sculptor1]

I seem to remember that you were the originator of the confused comment which you have yet to clarify. And you have yet to offer substantial "peer reviewed" evidence for it.
So are you will to withdrawal your original statement?

Not so much.

I clarified it several posts ago thusly: "Well if educated folks have fewer children, their genetic material is passed along at a lower rate in successive generations. If you want to use different terms to describe this phenomenon I'm OK with that".

Education and genetics are not the same thing.
When you educate women they adopt contraception, lowering the birth rate, they have the same genetics.
That is why your original statement is false.
Education cannot change the genome.

We are in agreement as far as what you posted. However, any genetic factors that are associated with seeking education will be selected against and unless seeking education is a random event (unlikely by my estimation, but I admit currently unknown), then any future discovered genetic factors that are partially causal to seeking education will also be selected against.

I think your objection is absurd.
Factors causing the "seeking of education" are not genetic but wholly political, cultural and social.
You are trying to justify the "Ideocracy" trope.

[3017Metaphysician]

AB, I find most just say something like 'well how come they didn't persecute this other politician' (as if somehow two wrongs make a right), or something to the effect that 'well I just like him' to preserve their so-called belief system. As such, to be brutally honest, their belief system may/may not include hidden feelings of racism, anger, fear, misogyny, power and greed. In other words, they either consciously or unconsciously identify with the ideology and persona of the person. It could be something as simple as 'I like the way he looks (John F Kennedy), or 'I can identify with him cause I had an affair too'. Indeed, stranger things have happened here! And, that all goes back to why people do what they do and the feelings/emotions surrounding or associated with decision making.

The justification for endorsing an evil clown that I hear most often is, “He tells it like it is.” IOW he is insensitive, rude and undiplomatic, and that gives permission to his followers to do the same.

AB!

Yeah....I wonder why he couldn't 'tell it like it is' and pleaded the Fifth! Real tough guy. Coward.

I really hate to wish bad on anybody, but the karma-thing is rearing its head here. Like most of us thought, the walls are closing in. If he's convicted of the Espionage Act (for the top-top secret stuff), he could face up to 10 years. He was probably going to try selling some of those documents.

And just a footnote to your "evil clown" characterization. When the hearing's revealed that after Barr and other attorneys/high level staff told him there was no widespread election fraud, and he replied with something to the effect 'that's not what social media say's', I'm thinking dude, are you grasping at straws here? What kind of president does that? Putting stock in what 'social media says' as your argument? Talk about being stupid and desperate for power; it is embarrassing.

Hence, Trump-ism is not logical. It's all angry emotion. Whaa...I don't want to be perceived as a loser!! Nobody will like me. Well guess what, Mr. Trump, you are a loser. You lost. Be a man and suck it up. Sure you did some good things ('used' the GOP), but the bad outweighed the good. That's why you didn't get re-elected.

The tell-tale was when he spoke right before the plane took him back home to Florida after he lost, he was on the podium and told the few remaining supporters on the runway "have a nice life". Dude, how about getting one? Want some cheese with that whine?

[Ecurb]

Gosh I think I already said as much in one sentence without the idle speculation.

Perhaps you would have, if you wrote in sentences.

You are totally misunderstood (sic) the idea about Genghis Khan. It's nothing more than a mathematical model, nothing at all to do with progeny.

Yes, I'm sure that the fact that Temujin had thousands of concubines and thousands of children had nothing to do with his descendant-leaving-success. Good grief!