More deaths than...

[d000hg]

The science is settled on this now, where as the evidence was statistical before they now know the genes that are responsible for intelligence.

Intelligence isn't a thing you're born with, it is at perhaps better described as a genetic potential. It has to be nurtured to express itself.
The reason your argument "smart people have smart kids" is so lacking is that it neglects to consider that smart kids are not only sired by smart parents, they are raised by them too. They spend time with their kid, talking to them and playing with them and encouraging them to be curious, maybe they send them to a nursery where they learn social skills and so on.
Whereas a couple of Waynetta slob types who sit their child in front of the TV all day, barely talk to them, feed them junk, etc are going to be a self-fulfilling propecy.

[minestrone]

Mild symptoms can be diagnosed as "slow" and bright parents are more on the balla bout this sort of thing but I'm talking about an explosion in people who are autistic enough they cannot attend regular schools - you don't see someone like that and not notice there's something awry.

My mum was a special needs teacher, whole hosts of issues like dyslexia in those days were just packaged up and the child was labelled 'backwards'.

Richard Branson came from some toff bloodline, failed at school with dyslexia, became successful, but if he had failed his children or grand children would have returned to being successful. Through genetics. If he had not had dyslexia he would have achieved at school and would have had probably guaranteed success at some level. But his random chance of getting dyslexia would have been diagnosed now and the risk that it brought with it would be much less.

[SueEllen]

Intelligence isn't a thing you're born with, it is at perhaps better described as a genetic potential. It has to be nurtured to express itself.

There is also more than one type of intelligence.

The reason your argument "smart people have smart kids" is so lacking is that it neglects to consider that smart kids are not only sired by smart parents, they are raised by them too. They spend time with their kid, talking to them and playing with them and encouraging them to be curious, maybe they send them to a nursery where they learn social skills and so on.

So the kids should have interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence but won't necessarily have other types but are more likely to.

Whereas a couple of Waynetta slob types who sit their child in front of the TV all day, barely talk to them, feed them junk, etc are going to be a self-fulfilling propecy.

Even then Waynetta slob types could end up with an intelligent child if the child has access to the remote control and just happens to decide themselves to watch educational programs. It just more unlikely.

[SueEllen]

My mum was a special needs teacher, whole hosts of issues like dyslexia in those days were just packaged up and the child was labelled 'backwards'.

Richard Branson came from some toff bloodline, failed at school with dyslexia, became successful, but if he had failed his children or grand children would have returned to being successful. Through genetics. If he had not had dyslexia he would have achieved at school and would have had probably guaranteed success at some level. But his random chance of getting dyslexia would have been diagnosed now and the risk that it brought with it would be much less.

Gary Lineker has bodily-kinesthetic and linguistic-verbal intelligence.

He was smart enough to sent his children to private schools but they failed academically...

[Gibbon]

Gary Lineker has bodily-kinesthetic and linguistic-verbal intelligence.

He was smart enough to sent his children to private schools but they failed academically...

You don't really understand genetics then, you need to solve this: one mutation gave rise to blue eyes, but how come if brown eye genes trump blue eye genes so many people ended up with blue eyes.

[SueEllen]

You don't really understand genetics then, you need to solve this: one mutation gave rise to blue eyes, but how come if brown eye genes trump blue eye genes so many people ended up with blue eyes.

So are you saying different forms of intelligence are regressive states?

Most physical characteristics are a mixture of genetics and environment. The amount of environmental influence is being researched particularly with illnesses e.g. type 2 diabetes. So in a lot of cases it is not only choose your parents well but choose your grandparents well.

[AtW]

Most physical characteristics are a mixture of genetics and environment. The amount of environmental influence is being researched particularly with illnesses e.g. type 2 diabetes. So in a lot of cases it is not only choose your parents well but choose your grandparents well.

You must be fun at parties... then again you are my sockie, so you ought to be...

[Gibbon]

So are you saying different forms of intelligence are regressive states?

Most physical characteristics are a mixture of genetics and environment. The amount of environmental influence is being researched particularly with illnesses e.g. type 2 diabetes. So in a lot of cases it is not only choose your parents well but choose your grandparents well.

Sort of yes and that's why identical twins separated at birth are a great resource for this. A few years back listening to some R4 thing whilst driving up the carpark (M1) heard this. A UK twin who basically abused his body in every way was diagnosed with a serious heart condition. When the doctor found out he had an identical twin he told him to contact him and get to quickly get checked out. Well the fat twin scoffed at this saying his twin lived in Oz and was a keep fit fanatic, the doc insisted. So he did and the fit twin scoffed too to but to humour his fat twin went and had tests. You can guess surely, yep he had the same and needed immediate surgery.

But the answer is inbreeding - simply put if two brown eyed offspring carrying the blue gene in some of their reproductive DNA mated then there's a good chance (well there was obvs.) you get blue on blue, the rest is easy.

BTW a regressive gene isn't backwards in an evolutionary sense, it's just it gives way.

[SueEllen]

Sort of yes and that's why identical twins separated at birth are a great resource for this. A few years back listening to some R4 thing whilst driving up the carpark (M1) heard this. A UK twin who basically abused his body in every way was diagnosed with a serious heart condition. When the doctor found out he had an identical twin he told him to contact him and get to quickly get checked out. Well the fat twin scoffed at this saying his twin lived in Oz and was a keep fit fanatic, the doc insisted. So he did and the fit twin scoffed too to but to humour his fat twin went and had tests. You can guess surely, yep he had the same and needed immediate surgery.

But the answer is inbreeding - simply put if two brown eyed offspring carrying the blue gene in some of their reproductive DNA mated then there's a good chance (well there was obvs.) you get blue on blue, the rest is easy.

BTW a regressive gene isn't backwards in an evolutionary sense, it's just it gives way.

Nice of you to mansplain...

[Gibbon]

Nice of you to mansplain...

Feck off really, cos it wasn't that at all and if you took it that way that's your bad judgement.

And TBF you didn't answer the question either.