[K-Dog]

But, since we are on the internet we must not be morons as we have no global audience.

[TDoS]

It will not take long to create an nation of morons.

The sentence imples future tense. Where have you been lately to think it hasn't already happened? I give origin credit mostly to the internet, I figure AI is the coupe de grace. Trump is a consequence of this happening as opposed to a prime mover.

It's always been a nation of morons because the vast majority of homo saps infesting the planet are morons.

Ah....that's a standard smart folks answer. None of the three of us are below average in that regard. And while the normal distribution of alleged IQ doesn't allow your answer to be true..."morons" can sure be shit-stupid regardless of IQ. Peakoil.com being like a shining historical light proving just such a thing. Not the only one of course, reddit isn't bad either if you go way back in the right place. Most of the oil PO sites have disappeared memorializing what was considered the "facts" of the event at that point in time. LATOC would be the absolute GOLD STANDARD but Matt made that disappear because he sure didn't want it coming back on him as he tried to change careers to professional astrologer.

The main thing the internet has done is to allow morons to communicate their moronic ideas faster and more efficiently to a global audience.

RE

Like a disease. It made people dumber, faster. So sure...it made things worse by spreading stupid shit far faster than it otherwise would have been. And did it really well, which is why it is my marker as a seismic shift.

One quick example. Colin Campball published a global peak oil claim for the world in 1990, in Noroil. Peter McCabe had a far more nuanced article published in 1998 (I was happy to have been a sounding board for him when he was looking for technical holes in his argument) and Colin Campbell came out of the woodwork, as did the French guy, and they went back and forth in print in later publications. It was great! Big ideas from experts fought out in public without the usual internet horseshit. And then the internet gives us peakoil.com....and presto....you can see the difference between the two if you were watching. I certainly did.

[TDoS]

But, since we are on the internet we must not be morons as we have no global audience.

I agree with the unstated but implied conclusion. Not even RE can shout loud enough into the wind to overcome the hordes of mentally diminished, uninformed and desiring to stay that way folks that the internet consists of.

It took him, what, this entire century to arrive at one or two people who think similarly, and an objective observer along for the ride to watch a particular idea purely as a professional curiousity?

[RE]

It will not take long to create an nation of morons.

The sentence imples future tense. Where have you been lately to think it hasn't already happened? I give origin credit mostly to the internet, I figure AI is the coupe de grace. Trump is a consequence of this happening as opposed to a prime mover.

It's always been a nation of morons because the vast majority of homo saps infesting the planet are morons.

Ah....that's a standard smart folks answer. None of the three of us are below average in that regard. And while the normal distribution of alleged IQ doesn't allow your answer to be true..."morons" can sure be shit-stupid regardless of IQ.

A standard answer yes, but I can objectively show why it's true with a very high level of confidence.

As you point out, IQ alone does not make a person a moron, other factors are involved.  A fairly large number of them no doubt, but I'll just pick out a few important ones to show why this is true.

Beginning with IQ, by definition half the population has an IQ 100 or below. considered "average" intelligence.  Not necessarily a moron, but not the brightest bulb in the box either.  Genetically, being really smart is more complex than just a single gene, but in aggregate behaves like a recessive trait.  Looked at in this way in a Punnet Square, a child needs to be Homozygous for the smart gene and only 1:4 kids come out smart, the other 3:4 are Stupid.



However, many smart people are morons, because they lack the also recessive Common Fucking Sense gene.  Instead they have the dominant Easily Deluded gene. Only 1:4 kids are homozygous cfs.  You don't need to be smart to know Trump is a moron, all you need is CFS.  Neverthe less, half the people voted for him,  showing they migh not be morons themselves, but at least lack CFS.

In order to NOT be a moron, you have to be homozygous for BOTH the smart gene AND the cfs gene, which means only 1:16 people, or 3.75% of the population.

Beyond that is the consequences gene, how many steps ahead someone can work out a problem. The typical person can think 1 step ahead and be right half the time, but 2 steps ahead only a quarter of the time.  The ability to think 3 steps ahead is rare by itself and to be right more than half the time even more rare.  However, to not be a moron, you need to be able to think more than 1 step ahead and be right more than half the time.

At the very least, these three factors control human thinking and behavior, and being on the right side of the moron/not moron divide requires all 3 be positive.  It's not really so clear cut  as a single gene for any of them, otherwise less than 1% of the population would not be morons.  However, my own personal lifetime cumulative study of all the people I have ever met indicates that a MINIMUM of 90% of the global population of homo sap are MORONS.  Besides the FSoA, my lifetime sample includes Brazilians, Australians, Brits, Frogs, Krauts, Vikings and a smattering of other countries.

QED. 😀

RE

[K-Dog]

The blind obedience gene is dominant.  For sure it is not recessive.  It works with the socialization gene to make morons of otherwise capable people.  Their other abilities, being in the normal range; let them pass easily.

You need the special glasses to see them.

[TDoS]

At the very least, these three factors control human thinking and behavior, and being on the right side of the moron/not moron divide requires all 3 be positive.

For starters, I liked the gene calculation explanation and went and looked up more about it prior to responding. Looking things up also revealed that a consequence and CFS gene look to be flyers, and when you ask AI about it what gets mentioned is an interaction between genetics and experience/environment. CFS seemed to also include/require a general intelligence and ability to learn. At best a "consequences gene" was attributed to combinations of others rather than its own thing.

It's not really so clear cut  as a single gene for any of them, otherwise less than 1% of the population would not be morons.  However, my own personal lifetime cumulative study of all the people I have ever met indicates that a MINIMUM of 90% of the global population of homo sap are MORONS.  Besides the FSoA, my lifetime sample includes Brazilians, Australians, Brits, Frogs, Krauts, Vikings and a smattering of other countries.
QED. 😀
RE

However, jumping to the morons conclusion, 90% strikes me as a bit higher than I would have WAG'd myself. But as with experience, intelligence, and critical thinking being involved in CFS and consequences, I imagine such a number might also involve the attitude and expectations of the person making the estimate.

You are a smart guy, it isn't a surprise you would think most folks are morons.

[TDoS]

The blind obedience gene is dominant.  For sure it is not recessive.

Couldn't find that as a specific gene either.

It works with the socialization gene to make morons of otherwise capable people.  Their other abilities, being in the normal range; let them pass easily.

And what type of test would you recommend to identify these types of people?

[RE]

For starters, I liked the gene calculation explanation and went and looked up more about it prior to responding. Looking things up also revealed that a consequence and CFS gene look to be flyers, and when you ask AI about it what gets mentioned is an interaction between genetics and experience/environment. CFS seemed to also include/require a general intelligence and ability to learn. At best a "consequences gene" was attributed to combinations of others rather than its own thing.

It is in fact FAR more complex than I make it out to be using basic Genetics to explain the concept.  As you point out, predicting consequences is clearly connected to the type of intelligence measured by IQ tests.  The fact is that there are hundreds if not thousands of individual genes which have an impact on intelligence and we're only beginning to map out what they are and where they are located on the chromosomes.  Genes which fall close to one another are referred to as "linked" genes and often get inherited together.  Blond Hair & Blue Eyes are an example of linked genes.  There is a mechanism called crossing over where linked genes sometimes get split, complicating the inheritance picture.

As you note also, genetics (nature) only partially explains intelligence or CFS, education & experience (nurture) also factor in.  However, given both the condition of the education system and our society, it is unlikely nurture is improving on nature much these days.

Anyhow, I simplified both the concepts and the math involved in genetics and inheritance to make the concepts readable and understandable to people not familiar with biochemistry.  The general principle though is valid even though the 10% number I estimate for non-morons is just a WAG and intelligence is relative because all I can compare it against is my own.  Which makes the whole thing quite biased. lol.  A more reasonable number is probably 80% morons.  Still  large majority though.

RE

[K-Dog]

The blind obedience gene is dominant.  For sure it is not recessive.

Couldn't find that as a specific gene either.

It works with the socialization gene to make morons of otherwise capable people.  Their other abilities, being in the normal range; let them pass easily.

And what type of test would you recommend to identify these types of people?

This should do it.

[TDoS]

And what type of test would you recommend to identify these types of people?

This should do it.

RE explained a topic in an interesting and understandable way. Was worth looking up and seeing how deep that rabbit hole could go, and when you get into all the combinations, the answer is...DEEP.

And when I ask about a test I get....Youtube wanting me to identify myself.....

I'm sure the video has a point.....you know...getting hits and likes or whatnot.....but the real question this generated in my mind is....did you provide a video because they can enunciate or explain said test far better than you can? I'll take the video as an answer of course....if you can vouch for them answering the question I asked.

Unfortuately, what usually happens with video links is the person doing the linking thinks there is a kernel of some sort in there...or maybe even some phrase of concept which answers ALL questions. Maybe it does...maybe it doesn't. Unfortunately, what usually happens with videos....someone likes one...and it becomes a catchall of some sort, and saves someone from having to do anything except wave at someone elses work and say..."Just watch this video and all will be revealed!".

Sort of like....THE BIBLE!!! A wonderful work of history, used by everyone to justify about everything. An advocate slings out a book and verse number, and uses it to prove a point. Or should I say, INTERPRETS it to make a point. And another Bible thumper can then sling out a book and verse contradicting the first..or INTERPRET it as contradicting the first. And then we found religions that fight and kill each other over he said/she said nonsense.

The internet and videos have sort of become like that. If you had kicked out some published research I could get my hands on, that has refernces and argument and logic all rolled up to make the point and can evaluated on its own, that would work! But videos....are....like modern....cartoons.....and while cartoons were usually pretty funny on Saturday morning...they sure weren't ever designed to be very....informative.

[K-Dog]

You look for an answer where none there is.  Living with ambiguity is hard.  A true master practices long to become comfortable with ambiguity.

Consider, that the stupid, unable to find answers for themselves do not know ambiguity at all.  They cannot balance a pencil on its point or consider the nuances of argument.  Nuance at all they cannot see.  Off to it they are turned.  Embracing contradiction and being comfortable with it is a skill that takes practice.  The stupid are too afraid of the empty void to experience contradiction as it is meant to be experienced.

You also have no fucking sense of humor.

[RE]

RE explained a topic in an interesting and understandable way. Was worth looking up and seeing how deep that rabbit hole could go, and when you get into all the combinations, the answer is...DEEP.

Glad it was helpful.  The topic is very deep indeed, and you have to be quite careful extrapolating too far based on what we know about genetics versus what we don't know.  Even scientists in  the field will convey the idea that because we worked out the genetic code carried on DNA, we have all thhe tools we need to work out how a given organism works, just a matter of time in identifying what code sequence is responsible for each phenotype.  Fact is , there is far more we don't know than what we do.

What we do know is that DNA  codes for different proteins, and these proteins serve either as catalysts for a metabolic pathway or as building blocks for the structure of the organism.  Which makes it possible to identify genes responsible for a variety of diseases and sometimes fix them.

Going much beyond this however is still shrouded in mystery.  There is little understanding of how genes code for the gross morphology of an organism, its body plan.  It always bothered me when I discussed it with Eric, and our bio teacher never gave me a satisfactory answer either.  I've also never been happy with the explanations for cell differentiation in different organs, nor with explanation of the organization of the brain by region.  Had I continued my study for a doctorate, this is where I would have focused my research.  The area of study is wide open to this day because it's so mysterious.  Nobel Prize material if you could work it out.

Anyhow, without an understanding of the gross structure to begin with, it's a mistake to go too far using genetics to explain how intelligence works and what traits can be ascribed to specific genes or sets of genes.  You  can however do pretty good statistical studies of populations to see how the numbers shake out, then work backwards to figure how many genes are involved and what's dominant or recessive.  Not much of that being done either, since most of the money is being spent on DNA research that has direct application in pharmaceutical drug synthesis.  That's where the money is.

RE

[K-Dog]

The number of genes defining the subtleties we are discussing is in the hundreds.  But there are some which are very apparent.

BBC.COM • 2025-05-15

Williams Syndrome: The people who are too friendly

People with Williams Syndrome treat strangers as their new best friends. Now the condition is giving clues to our evolutionary past – and what makes us human.

A handful of genes are missing from one chromosome and the body has only the back up copy to code proteins with.  I'll guess that deletion of the missing section from both chromosomes is fatal.

These missing genes have a dramatic affect on behavior and mental capacity.  The article link is good at discussing the underlying biochemistry.  Genes that control social behavior go all the way back.  To before humans were human, and individual genes can control more than one thing in a morass of complexity.  It shows that our analysis here of stupidity being controlled by social genes is not far off.  Or is that just my point of view?

The boundaries and institutions of collapsing empires are well established.  Innovation and change which built an empire once welcomed traits in the early days are considered subversive dissent that challenges the existing. now moribund social arrangement and poser structure. Only compliance is rewarded in a dying empire.  The dying days of empire are days of yes men and sycophants.

And now our social genetics reward stupidity, and stupidity blossoms like flowers in a field.  At the exact time wisdom is needed, it is shunned.

[TDoS]

You look for an answer where none there is.  Living with ambiguity is hard.  A true master practices long to become comfortable with ambiguity.

I do better than just ambiguous, I do probability, high, low, skewed or not, for as many scenarios as someone can dream up.

What I don't do is clicks for random talking heads on Youtube which may, or may not, have anything to do with the topic in question.

[TDoS]

And now our social genetics reward stupidity, and stupidity blossoms like flowers in a field.  At the exact time wisdom is needed, it is shunned.

Well, depends on the field of endeavour I suppose. Haven't seen much shunning at all, folks been paying quite well for the wisdom from those who have it.