You can reject massive 35 year longitudinal studies if you wish. I am unaware of any data or studies that indicate Terman was wrong.

Like I said your critique on that choice of wording is valid.
I would encourage you to go through the rest of my links and arguments.

I have no agenda. If you can come up with a solid refutation of my argument above I am interested in reading it.

The original studies are old and to my knowledge not available online but a summary can be found here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Terman

The actual argument presented on that blog was that high IQ individuals are more likely to embrace socialism.
This post is not about big government or socialism but since you brought it up here are Mr. Charlton musings on the matter.


Whether socialism leads to big government is certainly debatable and since that debate is irrelevant to this thread I have replaced the word big government with socialism in the OP

I would encourage you to go through all of my links with a similar critical eye. I have taken pains to present empiric data as objectively as possible but do not claim to be perfect.

"It is better to simply present the central tenets of religion in a way which emphasized that there is reason on both sides - against, yet also for, the truth and reality of Religion. Or to put it another way, it can reasonably be argued that it is not impossible that religion is false; but also, it is not impossible that religion is true.

Each person can make a choice; indeed each person must make a choice for themselves and upon that choice a great deal hinges maybe in the afterlife but definitely in the here and now." -Bruce Charlton

(The reply above was borrowed from the blog of Bruce Carlton as he articulated this point very well. Here is a link to his blog)

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/?m=1

I have not blamed any problems on Mormons, Jews or Atheists. If you think I did you did not read my essay carefully enough.  
Personally I am or was until very recently agnostic/atheist. I have not been to any type of church or religious service since I was a very small child. However, logic dictates that I should change this bad habit.  

The above essay was my personal journey that led me to the surprisingly revolution that my prior smug condition of agnosticism/borderline atheism was in fact an intellectual error.  I am sharing it not to castigate atheist as a few weeks ago I pretty much was one, but to share the logic that led me to realize that the embrace of atheism is an understandable but fundamental error and should be reconsidered.

Edit:
I formalized and clarified why atheism is intellectual error in my Argument for God

For those who have found this thread interesting.I have started another thread in the Politics and Society section titled

Atheism is Poison

Health and Religion

Religion and IQ

High IQ is usually regarded by those that possess it as an unmitigated good. Those gifted with superior intellect are not only smarter, they are statistically more likely to be taller, healthier, and more athletic than average. In his 1920 study on high IQ children Lewis Terman noted that despite these advantages high IQ is not always beneficial. He found that the very brightest often grew up maladjusted in some way suffering from anxiety, depression, personality disorder, or nervous breakdowns.

In Mensa Magazine Bruce G Charlton posited three fundamental disadvantages of high IQ .

Charlton’s triad:
1)   Socialism
2)   Atheism
3)   Reduced Fertility

Charlton argued that IQ is associated with a tendency to embrace socialism, a rejection of religious teachings, and ultimately a declining fertility. The purpose of this essay is to evaluate Charlton’s triad in the context of religion and health. Specifically we will look closely at the potential health effects of atheism.

Religion Health and Wellbeing

Is the lack of religion bad for your health? In a large survey of over 600,000 people Frank Newport and colleagues showed that the very religious not only report higher levels of overall wellbeing they are also more likely to have healthy eating and exercise habits.



Every religion reported superior wellbeing to that of atheist but the largest differences were found in the Mormons and the Jews. These are minority religions each comprising about 1.7% of the US population. Examining these two groups will help us better understand the impact of religion on human health.

Mormon Demographics

Demographically Mormons differ greatly from society at large. Nearly two thirds of Mormons 66% are married compared with just over half 48% of the general population. Mormons have large families with a fertility rate of 3.4 children per woman double that of atheists.



Mormons may also have some immunity the detrimental effect IQ on fertility. In the general population increasing income (highly correlated with IQ) is associated with both declining fertility and declining religious commitment. In Mormons the reverse is true. Mormon fertility is positively correlated with income and Mormons with higher levels of formal education tend to be more religiously committed.

On multiple religious measures Mormons stand out for having exceptionally high levels of religious commitment. More than nine-in-ten Mormons report a belief in God and that the Bible is the word of God. Mormons are also very observant in their religious practices with more than eight-in-ten praying daily. Mormons strongly support a strict interpretation of their faith and the preservation of traditional beliefs and practices.

Are these demographic differences actually due to the Mormon religion? How can we be confident these are not just population level differences that happen to correlate with religion? To better answer lets take a look at Jewish demographics.

Jewish Demographics

Unlike Mormons who are a young religion and can be looked at as a single group Judaism is one of the oldest religions and has splintered into many subgroups. There are many different branches of Judaism each with unique features. These branches can mostly be grouped into 5 major categories. From most conservative to most liberal these are Ultra-Orthodox, Modern Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Secular Jews.

Orthodox Jews believe their sacred scriptures the Torah is the word of God and should be studied and followed. Their customs and behavior is guided by observance of halakhah (Jewish Law). Conservative Jews acknowledge that Jewish writings come from God, but believe that the Law should adapt, absorbing aspects of the predominant culture while remaining true to Judaism's values. Reform Judaism does not hold that the Torah was written by God. The movement accepts the critical theory of Biblical authorship: that the Bible was written by separate sources and redacted together. Reform Jews do not believe in observance of commandments as such, but they retain much of the values and ethics of Judaism. Secular Jews do not affiliate with any major religious group they may or may not believe in God. A more detailed description of these difference can be read here.

When people think of the Jews they often think of famous figures like Allen Greenspan or presidential candidate Bernie Sanders both secular Jews. Secular Jews are often liberal, democratic voters. Orthodox Jews on the other hand tend to be socially conservative, and are more likely to be republican voters.

The Jews as a group are incredibly smart. They consistently rank highest in the world on IQ studies significantly higher than even Asians who are their nearest competitors. If Charlton’s triad of IQ disadvantages is correct then the Jews should be particularly susceptible. Is this the case?

American Jewish Fertility by Religious Current

Religious Sect	Average No. of Children per Woman
Ultra-Orthodox	6.72
Modern Orthodox	3.39
Conservative	1.74
Reform	1.36
Secular	1.29

As Jews leave orthodoxy it appears their fertility plummets. The Ultra-Orthodox are a group who are similar to the Amish in that they have partially separated themselves from the outside world choosing to live in isolated communities. They have a fertility rate of 6.72 which is similar to Amish fertility rates . Modern Orthodox Jews strictly adhere to their faith but simultaneously advocate engaging with the outside world especially higher education. The Modern Orthodox fertility rate 3.39 is nearly identical to that of Mormons. The Modern Orthodox have a similar philosophy to that of Mormons in that they advocate engaging with the outside world as much as possible while maintaining strict adherence to their religious code. As Jews move away from their historic religious tradition their fertility plummets. Secular Jews have a shockingly low fertility of 1.29 among the lowest in the world. For the Jews it appears the detrimental effects of high IQ are very real and that traditional religion offers some protection.

Toxicity of the Modern World

In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley envisioned a future where the masses were rendered infertile and controlled with pleasure and drugs. Is that the world we live in now? Anyone over that age of 25 may not realize how far traditional courtship and dating has been undermined by modernity. The tinder generation is being conditioned to swipe right on their onscreen app and meet up later for random sexual gratification. This phenomena has been described by Vanity Fair as nothing less than a dating apocalypse.

In Colorado long acting implantable contraceptives which a render women infertile for up to 10 years and require a doctor’s visit to remove have been implanted in 26% of young women age 15-24 as of 2013.

In 2015 an advisory body to the US Department of Health and Human Services recommended that Medicaid examine how often doctors are using “most effective” or “moderately effective” contraception. Only contraception deemed “highly effective” or “moderately effective” (Long acting implantable or long acting injections) would be included in the proposed measurement. Doctor’s with a low percentage of young patients using such contraception would presumably be rated as giving lower quality care.

We appear to be living in a “Utopia” of declining fitness and capability. An age of existential exhaustion manifested by an ageing, hedonistic society characterized by declining marriage, and near zero children.

Sin is the Situation


Modern society is a mechanism for inculcating bad habits, especially the habit of seeking instant pleasure, intoxications and distractions; a habit of regarding ourselves as passive recipients for ‘entertainment’. A devout life is not so much about a flash of understanding but is mostly a matter of using insights into truth in building-up good habits; and this can be influenced by our will. A devout life enables one to build these habits and most importantly successfully pass them on to our children.


In the end you must make a choice:

Wallow in the degradation of modernity

Or

Celebrate purity of the human spirit

Your choice is one that echoes through time influencing not only your life but the lives of your children and grandchildren as well.
Choose Wisely


Edit: It is clear that a few posters were angered by the original title of this post. As the goal of this post is not to attack or denigrate but to inform and share knowledge I have selected a new and less inflammatory title.

Edit #2: For the vast majority of my adult life I have been agnostic perhaps even borderline atheist. I never considered God in any serious way or let thoughts of God or religion have any meaningful impact on my plans and actions. Over the last three and a half years I have gradually come to realize that I was very mistaken. I was not evangelized or converted in a house of worship. I never would have responded to such overtures for my mind was closed to them. Instead God entered my life by opening my eyes to the simple logic and reason of his existence. It was a journey that started in a desire to understand the unhealthy aspects of our modern society and ended with the clear realization that a genuine faith and acceptance of God is not only necessary but a logical conclusion for any self-aware consciousness. On what grounds do I make this bold claim? Well if you are curious I have linked the reasoning in a chain of ten posts. The first link is immediately below.    

See Religion and Progress for more.

Have to highlight this article from ZeroHedge. Sounds like a very familiar thesis 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-09/if-knowledge-power-it-also-wealth

r0ach I can see why you would come to this conclusion. I but would argue that you can't see the forest for the trees.

I don't want to clutter the post up with walls of text so I will direct you to the three arguments I would make in response to your comment above.

1) Evolution necessitates mutual dependence
2) Complete freedom and self sufficiency is an illusion
3) Group selection, inclusive fitness and reciprocity limit neoplastic change



Don't knock the Amish. They are far wiser then many give them credit for. They recognized the toxic aspects of the modern narrative early on and partially walled themselves off from it while still interacting with and benefiting from it.

http://amishamerica.com/how-self-sufficient-are-the-amish/

That is not the only solution and not the one I would choose but it is very much not unreasonable. There are other groups that have found perhaps better solutions to both protect themselves while also interacting more fully with the modern world. In a few weeks I am going to write up a post in the Politics and Society forum titled "The failure of atheism" where I will explore this in more depth. I don't want to derail this thread so I will leave further talk along these lines to a different topic.

 

You underestimate the toxicity of the modern narrative on human fertility. Once traditional values are undermined population reduction proceeds rather quickly.

Don't count on this. We are not at all far from the point where people can do DNA editing in their garage.

http://gizmodo.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-crispr-the-new-tool-1702114381

This is certainly true for me. I have not paid anything for music in the last 10 years. However, I would certainly be wiling to do so if

1) I could easily identify music that I wanted to listen to with spending lots time sorting through music I disliked
2) It was easy to buy and doing so did not take much time
3) The music was easily transportable so I could listen to it without having to worry about remembering to carry around an ipod CD or some storage device all the time.

I suspect there are a lot of people out there like me.

So I ran across the two blogs of Bruce Charlton this weekend. He is a professor of theoretical medicine having completed a doctorate
in neuroendocrinology with postgraduate training in psychiatry and public health. They are located here

http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/

Fascinating reading. Below is a sample of one of his posts that I felt fit well with this thread.



General properties of Group Selection and the 'group mind' (in relation to the adaptive production of geniuses)

The major function of group selection is presumably directly to promote the sustained reproductive success (lineal survival) of the group, in face of the spontaneous tendency for random change to promote the individual (and other lower level, below group) levels of selection.

For example, group selection would be of value in sustaining the cell in face of the tendency of cell components (for example the nucleus, or of evolvable organelles such as the mitochondria, chloroplast or centriole) to become 'free-riders' or parasites (taking net reproductive benefits from the cell, while contributing less than this to the cell, or nothing, or actively-harming the probability of the survival and ultimately reproduction of the cell).

A more clear cut example is the individual specialized cell in the context of a multicellular organism; there is a tendency for individual cells to evolve towards 'opting out' of the coordinated cooperation of the whole organism  - and taking more than they give. This is termed neoplastic change, and the tendency is what leads to cancers - cancers constitute an internally-generated cellular parasite.

But the main posited role for group selection has been in the context of animal society - especially in social animals (social insects such as ants or bees, and social mammals such as many primates including Man - as well as other mammals with differentiated social roles such as naked mole rats or meerkats).

The problem for the sustained survival of social animals over many generations is that individuals tend to evolve to enhance their personal reproductive success at the expense of the group - taking benefits from social living while avoiding the costs and duties of social living - thereby destroying the social structure.

The fact that social animals are known to have existed over many generations is evidence that his problem has been solved historically - and the underpinning mechanism is usually regarded to be kin selection (aka inclusive fitness) together with reciprocity (the mutual benefits of cooperation).




The difficulty with such individual level mechanisms as kin selection is that they must themselves evolve in a context where the spontaneous tendency is for adaptations to be lost - on top of the spontaneous tendency for kin selection and reciprocity to be damaged by spontaneous mutations. In other words it is very difficult to evolve a high level mechanism of social living on top of all the other layers of cooperation at sub-cellular and cellular levels - all of which are vulnerable to destruction by spontaneous mutations.

This is presumably one reason why social animals have been a late arrival on the evolutionary scene, in the past couple of hundred thousand years - however, once a stable and sustainable adaptation had arisen to enforce sociality, these animals have more-or-less taken over the earth by becoming the dominant species. Thus ants and termites dominate the tropical regions (in terms of biomass) while more recently humans have come to dominate the temperate zones.

Clearly sociality is a tremendous advantage - the difficulties are in evolving it, and sustaining it in the face of continued spontaneous mutations with each generation; and the tendency of sub-lethal deleterious mutations to accumulate generation-upon-generation; plus any environmental change and variety which is itself a consequence of the high adaptiveness of these species.

However, the very success of social animals, their dominance, would be expected to contain the seeds of destruction - since the conditions for free-riding and parasitism are greatly increased by the expansion in numbers and the relative autonomy from environmental constraints such as food supply and predation.

(This can be seen very clearly in modern human society, where the large surplus of modern economies above subsistence allows for unprecedented levels of parasitic behaviour by individuals, and also groups - such as bureaucracies.)




A successful social species can therefore find itself in the situation when the main proximate constraint on reproductive success is competition within the species - and this creates many niches for more-or-less parasitic and exploitative behaviours (the individual profiting at the expense of the group).

In the short-term, the fastest and most secure route to enhanced reproductive success is to exploit other humans (rather than cooperate with them) - and this would tend to destroy the social structure by reproductively favouring the least social individual animals.

Group selection entails that the group has an identity, that this identity must have integrity over time, and that it be transmissible between generations. This group identity must be able to sustain itself and should also be potentially further-adaptive to some extent.

Group identity needs to be of a cognitive and behavioural nature - in other words there must be strategizing knowledge and also some kind of reasoning from this knowledge. In sum, group selection requires a group identity; and group identity requires a teleology, aim or purpose; and that purpose should 'know' (with better than random probability) how to implement itself in individuals within that group.

This is probably the basis of the intense modern suspicion of and hostility to group selection - this idea that group selection entails something like a group purpose, memory and 'mind' - which superficially sounds like a non-biological, maybe even supernatural, kind of thing.




However, social animals are based on communications between networks of individuals, and the idea of conceptualizing the complex interactions of individuals in terms of being a type of 'computational' or 'cognitive' process is actually fairly mainstream - for instance in the theories of complex systems, the mathematics of chaos and complexity and elsewhere.

So, in principle, there is no reason to exclude the possibility that webs of complexly interacting social animals can be considered as higher level, group entities - which have a tendency to sustain and reproduce themselves.

Furthermore, these networks of communications fall into patterns, and these patterns may be self-sustaining and with a tendency to expand - so there is a potential mechanism for non-genetic inter-generation transmission.

In other words, the group-level entity is a pattern of communications which is both influenced by and also influences the communications (and behaviours) of the individual components of that patter: the individual organisms. And this pattern of communications will tend to fall into relatively stable forms, forms that resist change.

(Such a stability of forms is something which has cropped up in many areas of science over more than 2000 years - since at least the time of Aristotle with his elaboration of a finite number of archetypal 'forms' or relatively stable conformations into which all things will tend to 'fall; modern conceptualizations of the same basic idea include 'strange attractors' and 'morphic fields'.)




I do not see any fatal difficulty in supposing that relatively stable and 'cognitive' patterns of inter-individual, group communications would be transmissible between generations of social animals - given that these generations are overlapping (with new group members incrementally arriving and maturing, while others are leaving and dying - but without a break in the continuity of communications).

Such a concept of 'group mind' would have implicit purpose (survival and self-propagation) implemented by problem solving and strategizing properties including memory and intelligent processing.

Therefore, in principle, this group mind entity could identify problems among individuals within the group, and (to a significant extent) suppress selfishness at the individual level - also it could foresee (with better than random probability) the need for (or potential benefits from) certain types of individual which would be useful to the group survival and reproduction. Then individuals of this type might be induced to arise from the group - perhaps by the kind of developmental switching posited by Life History theory.

So, for the putative example of genius - it seems possible that the group mind might detect and appreciate the need for, or potential benefits from, an increase in the production of geniuses (i.e. those individuals characterized by what I have termed an Endogenous personality comprising a triad of high intelligence, intuitive thinking and inner motivation).

Having calculated that such individuals would probably be of value to the group - it seems possible that either the developmental trajectory of individuals might be directed towards becoming a genius - or more fundamentally that suitable pairs of individual parents (especially those characterized by high intelligence - low mutational load) might (perhaps by broadly 'epigenetic' means, by affecting gene switching, activation, suppression etc) lead to the sexual conception of more potential geniuses who are designed to benefit the group survival and reproduction, even when this tends to reduce the probability of reproductive success in the individual geniuses.

So this above scheme could, in broad brush terms, provide a group selection mechanism by which the group benefits of genius might be acquired when the group circumstances require, despite that many or most geniuses have below average reproductive success due to their energies and efforts being directed at non-reproductive, non-social goals.

Bruce Charlton has an interesting blog where he argues against the idea of professional performers

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2013/12/against-professional-performers.html

Perhaps the distant future we will approach what he envisions. In the short to medium term, however, the continued existence of professional performers and enforceable copyright appears a safe bet. The current trend in society is towards increasing centralization and control not less.

Quite good thanks for the link

No one who does not suffer from chronic illness even those who treat it can ever fully understand. The best that can be achieved is empathy and an abstract generalized idea of what those individuals may be going through.

I have not commented on your herbal therapies not due to liability concerns but because they are outside of my scope of practice. I operate in a specialized niche of the medical world which does not deal with your current challenges. Unfortunately have little to contribute. I sent you a PM with the actions I would take in your position.

TPTB your post above was very good. First time in a while that I had to reread what you wrote a few times. It reminded me in some ways of your initial writings linked in the opening post.

You are arguing that the primary goal of life is to increase its information content which is the functional equivalent of increasing the number and probability of its possible configurations (a.k.a. states). As Entropy is proportional to the logarithm of multiplicity (the number of microstates) the primary goal of life is therefore to increase its internal entropy.

It’s a good argument. However, I would note that from the frame of reference of life not all entropy is the same. There is useful entropy information that facilitates further search and there is useless entropy noise which is either irrelevant or possibly inhibits the formation of higher information content.

Below are two older post from thaaanos that add to the discussion.



Perhaps life in this context can be envisioned as an energy driven search through entropy with selective retention. Life must protect the integrity of its previously stored information and noise must be evaluated and discarded. Life must simultaneously increase its information content so it can respond to a dynamic environment.

Perhaps this trade off can be thought of as the balance between search and exploitation. The search through entropy is costly and consumes energy. As the energy available to any branch of life is strictly limited the search must also be controlled and limited.

We previously engaged in a similar debate. I cleaned it up and copied the highlights below.

Hmm an interesting argument. However, I think you are glossing over complexity introduced by AI agents themselves.
While it may be eventually possible for AI to accurately model and predict unaugmented human behavior. Those same AI is will have difficulties predicting the behavior of agents operating at higher levels of complexity.

AI's will have difficulties modeling the behavior of humans using competing AIs for guidance. Furthermore AI's may be unable to model the behavior of autonomous members of their own kind. In such a scenario base human economics may indeed become a museum piece easily calculated, and predicted. However, the real action would simply rise up the economy to where the technological progress and innovation were occurring. The invisible hand would not cease but would simply scale up and apply to the society formed by complex interacting artificial intelligence's.

This discussion brings to mind one of my favorite science fiction series: The Golden Oecumene by by John C. Wright.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Oecumene

Without giving too much away the books center around a conflict between distinct branches of humanity. In one branch humans have subjected AI to serve human needs and structured their society around a centralized AI answerable to human leadership. In the other branch humans and AI coexist in a voluntary anarchistic society. Highly recommended reading for anyone who enjoys science fiction.