Kids With High IQs Grow Up to Be Vegetarians

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg It simply baffles me.

Yes, I would say that those who resort to reductionism and appeal to ignorance are quite baffled.

@Sugar: Yes, we are seeing vegetarianism grow. It will continue to do so.

Btw, welcome to Volconvo.

[Osborn F Enready]

SHW said: Yes, I would say that those who resort to reductionism and appeal to ignorance are quite baffled.

Hardly.

What do you have to guide your reason if not reductionism in some form?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready What do you have to guide your reason if not reductionism in some form?

A sense of normalcy with limits that do not negate the right to life by becoming neurotic.

[Osborn F Enready]

SHW said: A sense of normalcy with limits that do not negate the right to life by becoming neurotic.

LOL.....

I think many people on this site would find you quite neurotic from your general posting style, aim and focus.

But hey, whatever, I am no judge or jury, nor do I claim to be. Its my opinion, much like you have yours.

[StrongHeartsWin]

LOL!

A neurotic person has a hard time functioning. If I thought as a reductionist that plants were sentient feeling pain and that I shouldn`t move because the consequences of that may lead to the death of an ant or dust mite, then I would be neurotic and unable to function. I have limits of which allow me to live a normal life.

I surely am not armed to the teeth, speaking about violent rebellion, unemployed, living at home with my mother, or have had ever been ordered to take anger management. Now, that is scary, if not in its totality a profile of a person possibly dealing with some form of neurosis!

[Heather]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin LOL! A neurotic person has a hard time functioning. If I thought as a reductionist that plants were sentient feeling pain and that I shouldn`t move because the consequences of that may lead to the death of an ant or dust mite, then I would be neurotic and unable to function. I have limits of which allow me to live a normal life. I surely am not armed to the teeth, speaking about violent rebellion, unemployed, living at home with my mother, or have had ever been ordered to take anger management. Now, that is scary, if not in its totality a profile of a person dealing with some form of neurosis!

Wow. I came to this thread hoping to actually contribute the the point at hand, however, have found you, SHW, once again, trying to demoralize someone through a tactic of personal appeal. Why am I not shocked. By the way, before you insult someone, try knowing more about them. Works better.

On topic:

I skipped through most of this thread, so I apologize to anyone who has brought up the same point and I have not given credit to.

I have a hard time believing that IQ has anything to do with vegetarianism. I think it has more to do with people growing up around animals on a more regular basis. It is now the "norm" to have a pet in the household, thus one relates on a personal level with other speices. You learn that they too, have emotions, have wants, and needs. It makes them more human. I think it has more to do with the amount of exposure to such experiences than IQ.

An IQ is no more than a measure of ones capability to learn. Not what one has experienced.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Heather SHW, once again, trying to demoralize someone through a tactic of personal appeal. Why am I not shocked. By the way, before you insult someone, try knowing more about them. Works better.

Hi Heather,

Please look at post #84, and spread your rebuke around in the proper order they should come in and you will see where my reply stemmed from.

[Heather]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Hi Heather, Please look at post #84, and spread your rebuke around in the proper order they should come in and you will see where my reply stemmed from.

I already read it and I agree with Os in this instance. Your posts are often entirely off base. As in the example I just called you on. Trying to draw him in on a personal level. Again, as I've said to you before, it's off topic and serves no purpose other than to piss people off. It's uncalled for on several levels.

[iclaudius]

Quote by: Heather I skipped through most of this thread, so I apologize to anyone who has brought up the same point and I have not given credit to. I have a hard time believing that IQ has anything to do with vegetarianism. I think it has more to do with people growing up around animals on a more regular basis. It is now the "norm" to have a pet in the household, thus one relates on a personal level with other speices. You learn that they too, have emotions, have wants, and needs. It makes them more human. I think it has more to do with the amount of exposure to such experiences than IQ. An IQ is no more than a measure of ones capability to learn. Not what one has experienced.

Actually, that isn't what IQ does at all. Please refer here, to the thread you created for details.

On the subject of the OP, I carry the points I made over there to this debate: you can't measure intelligence with any reasonable accuracy anyway, so correlating IQ and vegetarianism is just stupid. Furthermore, we still haven't stepped beyond correlation; so what if all people with an IQ of 150+ happened to be vegetarianism? Without establishing that it's specifically because they are intelligent, you've done nothing except indicate preference of a few people, and as we all know, it doesn't matter who you are, if its an opinion, it's just an opinion.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Heather I already read it and I agree with Os in this instance. Your posts are often entirely off base. As in the example I just called you on. Trying to draw him in on a personal level. Again, as I've said to you before, it's off topic and serves no purpose other than to piss people off. It's uncalled for on several levels.

Like I said, if you are going to spread criticism for alluding to the personal, try to do so in an egalitarian manner in the order they pop up. Otherwise, you are just displaying a bias and your personal prejudice.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Heather I have a hard time believing that IQ has anything to do with vegetarianism.

Did you at least read the article of the study? What specific information do you take issue with? It would be best if you quoted it so we could zero in on it together.

I think it has more to do with people growing up around animals on a more regular basis.

Could be. Interaction with animals at an early age could cause one to become more emotionaly attactched to them and empathise with them more. It may depend though on how the family raises their children to view those animals. Many farm boys through many generations have not grown up to be vegetarians.

It is now the "norm" to have a pet in the household, thus one relates on a personal level with other speices. You learn that they too, have emotions, have wants, and needs.

Yes, but the study in this thread did not mention which households of these kids had pets or not. We don`t know if they controlled for it or not. Though it would be interesting to know. However, a lot of household with pets have kids that eat meat and don`t grow up to be vegetarians.

[Heather]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Like I said, if you are going to spread criticism for alluding to the personal, try to do so in an egalitarian manner in the order they pop up. Otherwise, you are just displaying a bias and your personal prejudice.

You presume that I do not give you equal regard. I assure you I have, and do. I don’t think I should have to explain to you in what matters you and I do agree upon, and I also don’t think I need to explain why you should know such. Let’s remember, this is a debate forum, to debate topics with concise and point driven reason. Recalling what personal things you may know about another member simply to see their reaction, no matter how upset you may be at their remarks, isn’t debate.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Did you at least read the article of the study? What specific information do you take issue with? It would be best if you quoted it so we could zero in on it together.

Unfortunately, I cannot. The link no longer works.

[Heather]

Quote by: iclaudius Actually, that isn't what IQ does at all. Please refer here, to the thread you created for details. On the subject of the OP, I carry the points I made over there to this debate: you can't measure intelligence with any reasonable accuracy anyway, so correlating IQ and vegetarianism is just stupid. Furthermore, we still haven't stepped beyond correlation; so what if all people with an IQ of 150+ happened to be vegetarianism? Without establishing that it's specifically because they are intelligent, you've done nothing except indicate preference of a few people, and as we all know, it doesn't matter who you are, if its an opinion, it's just an opinion.

I am aware that I started a thread about IQ and emotional state.

IQ definition.

If one does not obtain this score, by definition, from ones ability to learn, I cannot fathom how else it is discerned. If one cannot learn appropriately to their age level, then of coarse, they will have a lower IQ, and vis versa.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Heather Recalling what personal things you may know about another member simply to see their reaction, no matter how upset you may be at their remarks, isn’t debate.

Why do you think it was for seeing a reaction? I assure you it certainly was not. It was an observation, as surely as he will say his comments about me were. He, however, went out of his way to directly use the pronoun "you" to make it personal, where as I posited my comments about a person in general. That is what makes his an ad hominem and mine an observation in general about traits separated from the person. If he or you draw a line to connect the dots and affix them to a particular person, then that is a deduction you have made.

I am not upset.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin

Did you at least read the article of the study? What specific information do you take issue with? It would be best if you quoted it so we could zero in on it together.

Unfortunately, I cannot. The link no longer works.

I think this is the original article.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin I surely am not armed to the teeth, speaking about violent rebellion, unemployed, living at home with my mother, or have had ever been ordered to take anger management. Now, that is scary, if not in its totality a profile of a person possibly dealing with some form of neurosis!

Wow it's a good thing I'm none of those...

What's your point here?

Anywho, saying that killing animals is wrong, or immoral, has no justification unless looking at the fact that you are killing an animal, regardless of the pain it suffers before it dies. Sure, it'd be excellent if slaughterhouses used methods of killing animals that are painless(most of them do) which then brings us down to the only point you have, which is the killing of an animal... Same thing as killing a plant. If an animal is killed painlessly at it's grown age, tell me what the difference is between the animal being put to death for our wants/needs and the plant that has been put to death for our wants/needs.

Should we go out of our way to protect plants AND anmials from being killed and live as scavengers the rest of our lives? No, that's not how we change, that is not how humans evolve. We evolve by manipulating the world to our ways of life, we don't simply adapt. We can also eveolve morally, meaning looking at further details other than just simply killing, we now have the suffering that goes on before the killing. And if we somehow eliminate this suffering, what is wrong with killing?

Seriously, what is wrong... with killing?

[iclaudius]

Quote by: Heather I am aware that I started a thread about IQ and emotional state. IQ definition. If one does not obtain this score, by definition, from ones ability to learn, I cannot fathom how else it is discerned. If one cannot learn appropriately to their age level, then of coarse, they will have a lower IQ, and vis versa.

You said that IQ is: "no more than a measure of ones capability to learn. Not what one has experienced."

While it is true that IQ is a measure of one's mental age divided by chronological age multiplied by 100, that is not equivalent to what you said. See any number of books written on the subject of why IQ doesn't actually do a good job of measuring intelligence for other cases against it. If you're too lazy to do that, here's a paragraph from the post I linked:

Quote by: iclaudius First, let's get something out of the way: so-called "intelligence testing" (I'm looking at you, IQ test) is grossly mislabeled and almost universally misunderstood, even by so-called experts. In the first place, all variations of this monstrosity presuppose to some extent that potential ability to learn and actualized ability to learn are the same things, when they are clearly not. That's because, in order to test at all, you have to test using concepts that have been introduced outside of the test. (Reading instructions, for example.) In addition, these tests do not account for the various important parts of learning and learning development; a person's learning potential is not the same in childhood and adulthood, or even from day to day. Emotions factor in, too -- some people just suck at taking tests, for example. Because these tests have no way of differentiating actual intelligence from contextual hangups (or advantages), they just end up measuring a vague comparative propensity to do something a certain way (and very loosely indicate how successful that particular person will be in life). There are entire books written by reputable social scientists on why these tests are unreliable for measureing intelligence -- if you don't want to take my word for it, I would suggest picking any number of these up. IQ tests aren't without merit, but they definitely shouldn't be called IQ tests.

[Heather]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Why do you think it was for seeing a reaction? I assure you it certainly was not. It was an observation, as surely as he will say his comments about me were. He, however, went out of his way to directly use the pronoun "you" to make it personal, where as I posited my comments about a person in general. That is what makes his an ad hominem and mine an observation in general about traits separated from the person. If he or you draw a line to connect the dots and affix them to a particular person, then that is a deduction you have made.

And who here that has followed these threads couldn’t connect the dots? Your intent remains, no matter how you may try to argue your way out of it.


I read the article, thank you for providing it. But it has not swayed me. It by no means conclusively shows why people with a high IQ may be more likely to be vegetarian. I stand by my thoughts that it has more to do with environment than anything else (as do IQ scores, by the way.)

Read The Milwaukee Project.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Heather And who here that has followed these threads couldn’t connect the dots? Your intent remains, no matter how you may try to argue your way out of it.

My intent was an observation in general, unlike his, as seen with his use of the pronoun "you" directed at me. We will agree to disagree.

Though, I do have to say it appears you haven`t come across posts sprinkled around in the forum that explicitly tells people to focus on the trait or style of a poster rather than the poster in order to make it not an ad hominem, and sometimes that advice has been doled out by a mod or two.

I read the article, thank you for providing it. But it has not swayed me. It by no means conclusively shows why people with a high IQ may be more likely to be vegetarian.

That is right. A person quoted within the article commenting on the study said it was not conclusive. The study and article are quite clear in expressing it as links, and not causality, and also utilising words such as "likely to, more probable, etc..."

Those links are quite interesting and just may be made more clear with future studies. Time will tell.

[Heather]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin My intent was an observation in general, unlike his, as seen with his use of the pronoun "you" directed at me. We will agree to disagree.

You can say "generalized" all you'd like and use any other form of the word you care to. I'm not stupid. And neither are the others who frequent this forum. To insinuate otherwise is absurd.

Though, I do have to say it appears you haven`t come across posts sprinkled around in the forum that explicitly tells people to focus on the trait or style of a poster rather than the poster in order to make it not an ad hominem, and sometimes that advice has been doled out by a mod or two.

I'm sorry, are your an MOD? Am I out of line in calling you out on your personal rebuffs that are OFF TOPIC?

That is right. A person quoted within the article commenting on the study said it was not conclusive. The study and article are quite clear in expressing it as links, and not causality, and also utilising words such as "likely to, more probable, etc..." Those links are quite interesting and just may be made more clear with future studies. Time will tell.

Yes, that is right. And again, read the article to which I provided a link. IQ is directly linked to environment. So ones environment might be more likely to ultimately make one more probable to become vegetarian. It is exactly what I expressed in my initial post.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Heather You can say "generalized" all you'd like and use any other form of the word you care to. I'm not stupid. And neither are the others who frequent this forum. To insinuate otherwise is absurd.

I am not insinuating that you are, Heather. What I am directly saying is that you seem to not understand the difference of speaking in general and directly at a person and how the difference between the two allows for fair or unfair play in debate.

I'm sorry, are your an MOD? Am I out of line in calling you out on your personal rebuffs that are OFF TOPIC?

No, I am not. I simply pointed out to you some advice that other mods in the past have sprinkled around on Volconvo about debating. And, yes, you are out of line because you are being biased in your rebuff.

However, I would recommend that if you want to continue on this, we take it to PM, because I am sure if we keep off topic like this, a mod is sure to tell us to take it there. My PM box is open and waiting for your future comment on this.

Yes, that is right. And again, read the article to which I provided a link.

I have, and find nothing wrong with it. Interesting, but I have read before, and it is common sense, or it should be, that environments that are more nurturing, safe, and enrichhed with educational materials and nutrition that provide for optimal health, are going to influence IQ.

IQ is directly linked to environment. So ones environment might be more likely to ultimately make one more probable to become vegetarian. It is exactly what I expressed in my initial post.

Yes, and that whole mix of environmental factors that lead a child to have a high IQ by age 10 are precursors to them choosing to become vegetarian later in life. I have no problem with building blocks leading further back.