Higher IQ Means Better Robots

[Scientist]

It's something we never really think about: how psychological traits predispose people to either success or failure in the computer/robotic/electronic field:

From Mainstream Science on Intelligence, published in The Wall Street Journal, December 13, 1994, and signed by 52 professors, all experts in intelligence and allied field: complete article at http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/wsj.htm

and

The General Intelligence Factor

Despite some popular assertions, a single factor for intelligence, called g, can be measured with IQ tests and does predict success in life --- Linda S. Gottfredson: complete article at http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/apa.htm#SA

Regards

[Elgin Clock]

Oh boy.. I can't wait to see how I rate on that scale.
Seems all I end up doing when I try and fix what ails our bot is breaking something..

Oh well... The best intentions sometimes turn out hurting more than helping. Fact of life.

[Tristan Lall]

From the second citation:

The following article is important not because of its author but because of the popular magazine it appeared in. Scientific American has always been a Marxist leaning publication that promoted an egalitarian/radical environmentalism when it came to differences in intelligence. The only thing left is for Gould, Montagu, Kamin, Rose and Lewontin et al. to admit that they were wrong all along, and driven by an ideological agenda--a return to Communism and universalism. That is, as neo-Leninists, neo-totalitarianism for the liberation of the oppressed under their guiding hands. And anyone who dared to challenge them was labeled as racist in order to shut them up. Matt Nuenke

Did I just see them call Scientific American a bunch of Commies? While the assertion that genetics may predispose people to certain traits--namely intelligence--is not without merit, are you certain that you want to promote a site (neoeugenics.com) that claims that Stephen Jay Gould is a subversive Marxist, and that Judaism has advocated eugenics for several thousand years?

You're certainly right that we hardly think about it--the effect of genetics on anything is an unpopular topic, because of the inevitability of it being tied to the grand taboo, racism.

Out of curiosity, how much of that site's content do you agree with? (Because of the unpopularity of that viewpoint in mainstream society, I'm wondering whether it was simply a case of not checking your references thoroughly, or if you are intending to discuss the underlying beliefs espoused by that website.)