Respect Your Elders

Sticking to intelligence:

You are assuming that two intelligent people always have intelligent offspring.
This is not so. Intelligence is polygenic, that is, a wide variety of genes combine to give us our intelligence.
In tests done with identical twins (they have identical genes) raised in different environments it has been shown that they exhibit different I.Q. levels which shows that the environment also plays a part in I.Q. The findings are that genes contribute about 50% and the environment 50% of the total variance in I.Q. level.

Notice the same person tested twice has virtually the same I.Q. on each test.
Identical twins reared together score .86, pretty close to the same.
Identical twins reared apart score .76, which is further apart.

Also notice that a parent and child living together only score .42.

Other studies have shown that only 20 to 40% of the individual differences in intelligence between different people may be attributable to genetic differences. That's down from the previous estimate of 50%.

And further, you are assuming that those with higher intelligence always contribute more to society and those of lower intelligence are always detrimental to society.

Average I.Q. 90 - 109 Exceptional 120 -144
Muhammad Ali - I.Q. 78
Francis Crick - I.Q. 115 (Nobel-Prize winning molecular biologist)
Ronald Reagan - I.Q. 105
Andy Warhol - I.Q. 86

Ted Kaczynski (The Unabomber) - I.Q. 160
Charlene Williams (Ten sex-slave murders) - I.Q. 160
Nathan Leopold (Murder) - I.Q. 210
Rodney Alcala "Dating Game Killer" (Assault, Five Murders possible 50 to130, child molestation) - I.Q. 160

 

You never said it, but that is what I infer you meant.

In the above quotes, you recommend that "stupid" people be limited to having two children, you don't tell us how you would accomplish this. I understand this to mean that when stupid people are members of a society, that society will become ensnared in exploitation and waste. Then you tell us that any type of system will work with a collective I.Q. of 120. You continue to suggest that 300 million "Me's", which I understand as you, Nerdanderthal, would look quite different from our current society. I understood that to mean a better society than our current society because Nerdanderthal must have an I.Q. of at least 120.

So you never said that lower intelligence is always a determent to society, just that "The market mentality will always cause sellers to look for stupid people to exploit. As long as those stupid people are available, there will be exploitation and waste" and that "any system can work with a collective IQ of 120". From those two statements I inferred that you believe that stupid people are a detriment to society and therefore the correlate, smart people are a benefit to society.
Further, these statements by you,

Reinforced, in my mind, what I had inferred from the previous.
Now, if I am in error, please explain, in depth, your rational for limiting stupid people to two children and please explain how you would determine the limits of stupidity.
If stupid people are not always a detriment to society, why would you want to limit stupid people to just two offspring? I had assumed you wished to limit the proportional growth of stupid people in society. That is, by limiting the birth rate of stupid people, society as a whole would necessarily grow more intelligent no matter what other factors were involved in the determination of intelligence.

As far as I can determine "idiot" is an outdated term for those with an I.Q. below 20.
Whether the above made intellectual contributions may be debatable, by there are other ways to contribute to society.

The I.Q. numbers for the serial killers are from the Net. - 1, 2, 3...and so on, I don't have time to list them all right now, look it up.

Anecdotal evidence is not based on fact. I have presented factual evidence (as near as I can determine) of the I.Q.s of various people in support of my contention that society may sometimes benefit from the input of lower intelligence people and sometimes be hurt by those of higher intelligence.

I have to run, wifey is calling...I'll get back to this later.

 

But that is still assuming that those with higher intelligence always benefit society, while those of lower intelligence never do.

 

The New York Times article After the Bell Curve does state early on that a century of past studies, prior to 1994, show that about three-quarters of I.Q. differences is due to heredity. This figure was then used by some individuals to claim that environment plays no part in the scores exhibited on I.Q. tests. The rest of the article attempts to dispel that notion based on newer studies.

The Wikipedia article you cite: Heritability of IQ, states the heritability factor of intelligence by giving a range of 0 for children of low socioeconomic status to .5 to .8 for others, where 1 would be no variance between parent and child. 0.5 is given for varying populations.
It then goes on to make this statement: "Recent studies suggest that family environment (i.e., upbringing) has negligible long-lasting effects upon adult IQ. [12]" Now if you follow the footnote to the study, Assumption-Free Estimation of Heritability from Genome-Wide Identity-by-Descent Sharing between Full Siblings, you will find it is a study about the inheritance of height, not intelligence.

Which would seem to support the statement that Intelligence is polygenic.

The Wiki article does state that "IQ heritability increases during early childhood, but it is unclear whether it stabilizes thereafter.[8] A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about 0.45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence.[9]" I didn't follow those footnotes. perhaps you will and report back.

I would like to move on to the Caveats, some of which briefly state:

And I'm going to stop there...my point is that environment plays a roll in I.Q.

Now, do you believe that environment plays a roll in I.Q. and if so or not so; do you still maintain that we require "stupid people to have 2 kids maximum"?

And further do you believe that those you label as "stupid" can not contribute to society?