|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
We're not seriously linking high salary with intelligence, are we? If that's an accurate measure, there are plenty of single, intelligent men working up in Northern Alberta on the oil rigs.
If you did do a census on the number of children in a family, you'd find that the lower classes breed much quicker than the upper classes. It's counterintuitive but true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
We're not seriously linking high salary with intelligence, are we? If that's an accurate measure, there are plenty of single, intelligent men working up in Northern Alberta on the oil rigs.
If you did do a census on the number of children in a family, you'd find that the lower classes breed much quicker than the upper classes. It's counterintuitive but true. |
Its not at all counterintuitive. Kids are insurance. When people have no money they will have more kids because those kids can then bring money into the family. This is really about pld age insurance. Wealthier people have more money and therefore dont need to depend on kids in their old age. Also, a wealthier person will spend more money on a single kid than a poor family on a bunch of them. Its a matter of cost and return really: for poor parents they need the kids, wont really spend much on them and the kids will in turn take care of the parents. Rich parents will invest big money in their kids and the kids wont really take care of their older parents. In any effect, they wont be asked to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
We're not seriously linking high salary with intelligence, are we? If that's an accurate measure, there are plenty of single, intelligent men working up in Northern Alberta on the oil rigs.
If you did do a census on the number of children in a family, you'd find that the lower classes breed much quicker than the upper classes. It's counterintuitive but true. |
Its not at all counterintuitive. Kids are insurance. When people have no money they will have more kids because those kids can then bring money into the family. This is really about pld age insurance. Wealthier people have more money and therefore dont need to depend on kids in their old age. Also, a wealthier person will spend more money on a single kid than a poor family on a bunch of them. Its a matter of cost and return really: for poor parents they need the kids, wont really spend much on them and the kids will in turn take care of the parents. Rich parents will invest big money in their kids and the kids wont really take care of their older parents. In any effect, they wont be asked to. |
I know that's how it used to be, but I really don't think society works the same way anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| No, because a woman isnt doing the selcting, the man is. |
Dude, if the woman is pursuing, she's making a selection. (Some people pursue and select certain universities and programs they'd like to attend.. That is independent of whether or not the university accepts them. But they have to make a choice and apply for the other side of the equation to work.)
So, yes, the man has a choice as well. He makes that choice (based on other factors as laid out in that study I linked) among the women signaling their availability. But a woman generally doesn't signal her availability to a man that falls outside of her selection criteria. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theatrelily
Joined: 03 Jun 2004
Location: Haeundae-gu, Busan
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A bit off-topic, but just quickly:
| tomato wrote: |
I lose sleep wondering about these questions:
▶ what does the first chair oboist tune to?
|
When I was still playing, I tuned to a B flat from one of the flutes.
hope you sleep a little better now.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| We're not seriously linking high salary with intelligence, are we? If that's an accurate measure, there are plenty of single, intelligent men working up in Northern Alberta on the oil rigs. |
Again, I don't think you fully read what I wrote. It's not a neat, strong correlation.
Anyway, who is smarter, a blue collar man that goes to Northern Alberta or a blue collar man that stays in Winnipeg hoping for a middle class income job he might not have the ability to ever earn again?
| Quote: |
| If you did do a census on the number of children in a family, you'd find that the lower classes breed much quicker than the upper classes. It's counterintuitive but true. |
Again, so what? I'm not saying we're trying to take a wolf and breed a poodle in 5 generations. I'm saying at each economic level, we're creating an environment where being smarter increases your chances (however small) of increasing your income. Increases in income correlate to higher attraction to women. Higher attraction to women increases your chances of passing on your genes. Your children then have a higher chance of being smarter. This slowly nudges the distribution to the right. Over 20,000 years, the brain evolves.
Look, in evolution selection is based on two pumps. 1) Survival. More fit, better you're able to hunt or out run, the more likely you are to pass on your genes. 2) Mate selection. Peacock feathers do nothing for survival, but they signal to the female that the male has good genes, is fit, can get enough food to keep those feathers looking good. In human society, you don't have to hunt or out run. The only pump left in modern society is mate selection. What determines who women spread their legs for? The studies indicate everything else being equal it is the male who offers himself and offers the better earning potential. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| jinju wrote: |
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
We're not seriously linking high salary with intelligence, are we? If that's an accurate measure, there are plenty of single, intelligent men working up in Northern Alberta on the oil rigs.
If you did do a census on the number of children in a family, you'd find that the lower classes breed much quicker than the upper classes. It's counterintuitive but true. |
Its not at all counterintuitive. Kids are insurance. When people have no money they will have more kids because those kids can then bring money into the family. This is really about pld age insurance. Wealthier people have more money and therefore dont need to depend on kids in their old age. Also, a wealthier person will spend more money on a single kid than a poor family on a bunch of them. Its a matter of cost and return really: for poor parents they need the kids, wont really spend much on them and the kids will in turn take care of the parents. Rich parents will invest big money in their kids and the kids wont really take care of their older parents. In any effect, they wont be asked to. |
I know that's how it used to be, but I really don't think society works the same way anymore. |
That's why birth rates are declining in most developed countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
