The proof is obvious and needs no maths.

No, Anon!

Stupidity is very vincible.

And Natural Selection is always working against it:

"Early man evolved and developed through the ability to adapt to his surroundings. One of the weaknesses of humans however was stupidity. This stupidity was to a greater extent kept in check by natural selection. If for example, a stupid human decided it would be a good idea single handedly attack a sabre toothed tiger, the result would be that the human in question would learn the error of his ways shortly before his death. This was a good thing because it kept the number of stupid people low, and more importantly they didn't get the chance to add stupidity to the gene pool." http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3164186

Well, Natural Selection can also favor stupidity.

Now, what did I mean with "Stupidity is invincible!"?
Just that you can't do anything about it.

Anon: Well, Natural Selection can also favor stupidity. Now, what did I mean with "Stupidity is invincible!"? Just that you can't do anything about it.





AAF: The only selection, in favor of stupidity, that I can think of, is the one done by the intelligent people themselves! Intelligence Testing During World War I: "At the outset of World War I, U.S. Army officials were faced with the monumental task of screening an enormous number of army recruits. In 1917, as president of the APA and chair of the Committee on the Psychological Examination of Recruits, psychologist Robert Yerkes developed two tests known as the Army Alpha and Beta tests. The Army Alpha was designed as a written test, while the Army Beta was administered orally in cases where recruits were unable to read. The tests were administered to over two million soldiers in an effort to help the army determine which men were well suited to specific positions and leadership roles (McGuire, 1994)."
History of Intelligence Testing

As you can see, stupid males not only avoided, thanks to the above artificial selection, getting killed in war; but also they had been given, thanks to the absence of intelligent males, the golden opportunity to interact unopposed with all the available females (the intelligent & the stupid) and to spread their genes wider and better than ever before.

I am not very sure about your example.

For sure computing officers in the artillery were less exposed than uneducated footsoldier.

That was only done after passing the initial test.

Based on the results of the Alpha Test, the following groups were excluded on sight from the arm forces:


[1] Stupid: 70-80
[2] Moron: 50-69
[3] Imbecile: 20-49
[4] Idiot: 0-20

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx

AAF, Don't you remember "Catch 22?"

I meant the 'Armed Forces' of WW1, Jose!

Chuckle.

O.K. one more time!

I discover with delight that we could agree on anti-militarism !
I thought that anti-relativists and the like would be good candidates for obeying simple orders and understand politics and everything in a simplistic way.

Re: Anonymous, Stupidity is invincible! July 2 2009, 2:36 AM

Anonymous: "Well, Natural Selection can also favor stupidity.

Now, what did I mean with "Stupidity is invincible!"?
Just that you can't do anything about it."

In other words, You are saying you are going to win because you are to stupid to loose. Can't say's I disagree!

No, I was precisely saying I am losing the race against stupidity here.
No surprise that you missed that.

Re: Anonymous nka CotY,

CotY: "No, I was precisely saying I am losing the race against stupidity here.
No surprise that you missed that."

No no! good buddy, you are not loosing the race, you are almost one lap ahead of us! It just looks to you like we are ahead of you.

Anonymous said: "No, I was precisely saying I am losing the race against stupidity here. No surprise that you missed that.

Jose says: It will be hard for you to lose, when you are the perfect example of stupidity.

Reminds me about how you lose energy:



Still stuck in your deep problems shaking the foundations of physics?

Anon;

I'm afraid your first impression is correct!

Anonymous said: "Still stuck in your deep problems shaking the foundations of physics?"

It is you and your ilk that insist on making up new "physics" out of whole cloth (and in so doing "shaking the foundations of physics".) Big Bang, Black Holes, and Dark Matter are all foolish hypothesis needed to describe your religion. None has ever been observed.

Plasma cosmology on the other hand, succeeds in describing the observations from space using conventional Physics, and Laboratory experiments, with no need for such inventions.

You need to spend some time refuting the history of plasma cosmology, instead of spouting and spewing your B.S. that you "already know everything about the subject." Frankly, you are very foolish.

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/