HOME | DD
jollyjack β Darwinism Explained
Published: 2014-01-17 17:43:37 +0000 UTC; Views: 69205; Favourites: 2299; Downloads: 691
Redirect to original
Description
ΒRelated content
Comments: 346
So, clearly we need actual evidence. Nobody's pointing to any yet.
π: 0 β©: 1
what? no? I'm totally convinced by the second theory in that comic!
π: 0 β©: 1
Or just hoping that you will be a member of the future ruling class, eh?
π: 0 β©: 0
Hardly, considering the huge plothole it has.
π: 0 β©: 0
Idiocracy oversimplifies both the concepts of evolution and natural selection, and the reality of the world environment. It also ignores many counter-tendencies and simply makes shit up to be funny.
The ones more prone to reproduction in the US currently are those with the least upward mobility, NOT the stupid. I know of a man with a PhD in mathematics who chose to work at Wal-Mart instead because he didn't need more than that (note: it's a living wage in the midwest) and was happier. There are also the stupid who get into positions of authority, work long hours, and never make time for a family. There is certainly a correlation between standard of living and intelligence, but the correlation for reproduction is with the standard of living.
These are current conditions produced by the modern work environment. If, as the movie asserted, the subset of mankind in the US tended towards less intelligence, the group would be out-competed by those in other areas and the standard of living would decline, altering the dynamics that created the downward trend and creating an oscillation trend instead. There are also those who are actively pushing back against the mindset of working to death to be successful, and instead seeking a better work-life balance that often includes reproducing.
Then there is the matter of the future presented. A society that still somehow creates and operates complex equipment, yet is so ubiquitously stupid that it has abandoned the concept of sanitation. The high technology is the enabler of the asserted anti-intelligence evolutionary trend, yet could not exist without considerable intelligence.
π: 0 β©: 3
In the movie, they have a big computer.Β Compare the books it was based on.Β In 1, there are in fact a smart minority that ask a (ruthless) 1950's person to solve an overpopulation issue.Β He sends them all to Mars.Β [spoiler](LOL he lied just a 'bit')[/spoiler]
π: 0 β©: 0
Way to heart-spike a joke with overanalysis.
π: 0 β©: 0
Small caviat increased standard of living has a correlation to the accumulation of knowlwdge, not intelligence, but we all know what you ment and you foward very good points.
π: 0 β©: 1
It actually correlates to both. Higher education is the metric we have for accumulation of knowledge, and though it as diminishing returns, it does correlate (though the causal relationship there is more obvious - if it didn't correlate, not enough people would bother pursuing higher education to keep most schools open). That said, intelligence, as measured by voluntary testing also has a correlation.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well thats the thing, most of these "tests " rely on the subjects preexisting accumulation of knowwledfe to judge intelligence. Here is an example where what seems to be an intelligence question is actually a knowledge question:
A man goes to a barber for A shave. Two men are playing wih a ball outside. One of the men playing ball kicks too hard and brekas the barbers window, hitting the barber, who is already holding a blade to the man who wanted a shave, and accidently slits his throat, killing him. Who is to blame in a court of law? Why? ( im not asking you to answer the questionbut you may if you wish)
At first glance it looks like a logic question. However, it actually questions the persons knowledge of greco roman law. Therefore a test thatclaims to test intelligence would unintentionally test knowledge instead.
Better, many who were trained to know the answer would get the question wrong anyways, which in turn makes the question appear more
Viable and less biased towards knowledge.
π: 0 β©: 2
The guy who agreed to have an open razor against his skin, duh.Β XD
π: 0 β©: 1
Why?
he never asked for the ball to fly in from no where.
Indeed the sheer unlikelihood of having a ball with enough force to smash through a window happen to not only smash the window but find one particular window where a blade was being held to another mans throat, and happen to hit the barber in just the right way or enough force to jerk his arm in precisely the way such that the man having the shave would die?
Do you blame the rape victim for being raped because she was wearing a short skirt while walking down an open street?
(Of course in old greco roman law the answer to both these questions is still yes. This isnt an exorcise Β in knowing the law, this is an exorcise in being intelligent enough or knowledgeable enough to explain the law)
π: 0 β©: 0
I've never seen anything like that on a modern intelligence test. That's something they intentionally avoid. The issue with intelligence tests is generally no longer knowledge bias, which is a well understood historic issue that they have learned to work with, but the lack of a firm definition of "intelligence". It primarily tests logical and computational intelligence, while ignoring many other types of intelligence. That is why, for example, someone like me can test extremely well on an intelligence test, yet I have a very low social intelligence.
The closest I've seen to that type of question gave the specific facts required buried in related, but not relevant facts.
π: 0 β©: 1
Are you sure? Maybe its because most of the intelligence tests i have run into are older models, but testing logical and computational ability still tends a bias towards those who have had experience answering such questions beforehand, making the tests marker of the persons experience withsuch questions, and allow them to answer appropriately. Maybe if you could provide an example of one of these questions so that i could ensure they are what i believe them to be....no never mind.
Im genually interested and want this conversation to continue but maybe we have goten off the original topic. Onthe practical application of darwinism to humans wasnt it?
π: 0 β©: 1
Fair point. So this is why the bees were disappearing. It wasn't the Daleks, it was JollyJack putting the bees in boxes to bolster Darwin's street cred...
π: 0 β©: 1
Lol...wait, that really isntnatural selection huh. Not that anyone will complain about artificialselection. I love those juicy angus steaks after all.
π: 0 β©: 0
see now i wanna design a documentary about idiots. You see so many about everything from rocks to rocket scientists but none about pure honest morons.
π: 0 β©: 0
More like idiots tend to attract more the other sex than those that don't have shit for a brain.
π: 0 β©: 0
Pretty much sums it up.
π: 0 β©: 0
A good friend of mine uses a similar term. He calls it "evolution in action."
π: 0 β©: 0
this should be in every book that even hits at darwinisimΒ
π: 0 β©: 0
Ooh, another candidate for the Darwin Awards.
π: 0 β©: 0
Tape box shut, shake aggressively, and give to hated Enemies.
If asked why, say you were simply helping evolution along while conveniently removing the sticker you placed over the contents label
π: 0 β©: 1
I like the cut of your jib.
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
And to think that today's society allows survival of such individuals to adulthood...
π: 0 β©: 1
sad but true
we'd never survive in the wild XD
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, not ALL of us. The stupid ones, yea gone.
π: 0 β©: 1
but mostly only people who know how to live inthe wilderness, city folk probly wont last long, and celebrities may be an endangered species if that happens XD
π: 0 β©: 2
Nature is a cruel, nasty, bitch. Besides, it's not the first time humans almost went extinct.
π: 0 β©: 1
yep,
the plague
π: 0 β©: 1
1918 flu pandemic. Wiped out 3-5% of the global population.
π: 0 β©: 1
well the plague of the medieval times did much much more than that!
π: 0 β©: 4
Look up 'population bottleneck'.Β Many 'almost humans' didn't make it to billions.
π: 0 β©: 0
Thats the worlds population. It was mostly in Europe. Some places never had to deal with it.
π: 0 β©: 0
But that was confined mostly to Europe at that time.
π: 0 β©: 0
Oh, don't worry, we're heading for another pandemic or apocalypse or some other end of the world scenario sooner or later (I'm betting on sooner, because mother nature has waited long enough to weed out the weak and stupid among our species, and the overcrowded metropolis' of the world are perfect breeding grounds for viruses).
π: 0 β©: 0
But isn't that like saying an individual ant or termite worker can't survive long outside of the hive? Β Because aside from the inability to divide reproductive labor (for the moment), that's us - we may not be a hive species (yet), but the entire strength of our species is in our communal action. Β One army ant goes squish, one million skeletonize a cow.
π: 0 β©: 0
Hmm... what could be in here
π: 0 β©: 1
My guess is candie or puppies.
π: 0 β©: 0
Aw, come on. I'm sure what follows is an educated, informative and reasonably heated argument with both sides expressing their beliefs.
Or the biblethumpers start biblethumping
π: 0 β©: 2
To be fair, bibles can make some pretty sweet music if you thump them right.
π: 0 β©: 0
Hush now, everyone's behaving politely so far and you're gonna jinx it!
π: 0 β©: 0
<= Prev |