I think you might want to reread your own question. I know it is tough to decipher from my level, but follow along and learn something.
In an attempt to decipher from your level, I dare to say your observation is flawed. While your statement is true, it's not relevant to the original point Hooker was making. I'm sure he could explain it to you himself but his point was that there are, as a whole, more unintelligent kids being born than intelligent ones. As a result the average IQ will start to diminish. If this continues, it will continue exponentially - meaning the percent of unintelligent to the intelligent will become so far apart that the intelligent will no longer have any influence on economy, culture, etc. Your statement that the two can cross is true but its overall effect will be to minutely slow this process down, since as mentioned above, economic class tend to trend toward each other as a whole. Your point is the exception, not the rule.
I believe that intelligence is both inherited and learned. None of us ever reach our full potential, but in general children from poor families get less positive stimulus during the all important developmental ages of childhood. That could be changing in today's world as many wealthier people tend to be more self involved, and not as involved in their children's development.
I gotta say this is the most enlightening post I have seen in this whole THREAD-- Sorry,SKYWALKER but Im adding it to my personal collection of the truths of life as I see them....
If your life's goal is not for your children to out achieve you in every way possible you should never have breed in the first place!
There are countless innocent children that have been dealt a bad hand, and I feel bad for them. It is great to hear the stories of what some children have over come to succeed in life. To say there are just as many spoiled brats that will not contribute to our society as poor innocent children is ridiculous. There are far more poor people than rich so there is no way those numbers could even work out. I am going to go out on a limb and say you are a teacher or professor!
I have a Masters in Education, but do not use it. I had to come up with something Hooker was making me look bad again.
I agree with your first sentence, but your last sentence is a pretty big generalization. I dont mind if you're poor and have kids, as long as you're responsible and not on government assistance. But you shouldnt be having kids if you dont have a job or have a minimum wage job and am on government assistance.
Agree we're already there as far as the OP goes. I have to disagree, I hit my IQ potential when I was three and it was all downhill from there.
It is a generalization, as with anything some people do their jobs the right way and others do not. I'm just saying that from my observation, many parents are less engaged with their children than they once were. As an example, I'm a coach for our town softball league. Of all my kids, there's only one or two that actually go out and play catch with their daughters, the rest expect me to teach their kids everything. Then wonder why my daughter is heads and tails better than theirs. It really has nothing to do with their potential, and everything to do with practice. I believe that parents used to be more involved, but life has become so busy that sometimes children get put on the back burner for a lot of folks.
Posted up on Drudge this morning. Luckily these are post college concerns for females. Should we care that smart women aren't having kids? | Sadhbh Walshe | Comment is free | theguardian.com
When I did baseball as a kid, none of the parents stayed. It was up to the coach and assistant coaches to teach. Guess it's just different here.
