Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Low intelligence among top heart health risks (this is not your average U.K. satire)....
U.K. Reuters ^ | 02/10/10 | Kate Kelland

Posted on 02/10/2010 9:05:05 AM PST by AngelesCrestHighway

LONDON (Reuters) - Intelligence comes second only to smoking as a predictor of heart disease, scientists said on Wednesday, suggesting public health campaigns may need to be designed for people with lower IQs if they are to work. Research by Britain's Medical Research Council (MRC) found that lower intelligence quotient (IQ) scores were associated with higher rates of heart disease and death, and were more important indicators than any other risk factors except smoking.

(Excerpt) Read more at uk.reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: iq
Stupid is the second leading cause of heart desease? Well done, MRC!
1 posted on 02/10/2010 9:05:07 AM PST by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

Natural Selection at work


2 posted on 02/10/2010 9:06:59 AM PST by 101voodoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

that’s because smart people do not let others hold their beers while they do stuff.


3 posted on 02/10/2010 9:07:16 AM PST by going hot (Happiness is a Momma Deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

Seriously, this could have 2 different reasons (and maybe more I haven’t thought of). First, if you are not that bright, you are less likely to know how to stay healthy (or to even care to try). OR perhaps there are things going on in your body that make you less healthy AND give you a lower IQ. Of course, I don’t expect the second choice to be pursued by government back scientists since it would be a very unPC thing to even consider.


4 posted on 02/10/2010 9:08:46 AM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

If true, why do we have any dim-bulb-crats over the age of 50?


5 posted on 02/10/2010 9:10:40 AM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

Danger, Danger, White House in Danger, Danger.


6 posted on 02/10/2010 9:10:50 AM PST by StAntKnee (I keep thinking I'm gonna wake up from this dream theatre of the absurd.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway
Give them all and iPod (or anything with the Apple brand) and a picture of Steve Jobs to worship. Everybody on here knows that that owning an Apple product instantly transforms you into a popular, successful, and intelligent person who can dispense wisdom to the masses.
7 posted on 02/10/2010 9:10:52 AM PST by Wooly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wooly

Where’s that Nazi Heath Care Poster?


8 posted on 02/10/2010 9:11:56 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway
Stupid is the second leading cause of heart desease?

Quick, Michelle and Barrack buy massive amounts of life insurance for your mates!

9 posted on 02/10/2010 9:19:59 AM PST by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

Liberals hardest hit.


10 posted on 02/10/2010 9:24:39 AM PST by TexasFreeper2009 (November is coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 101voodoo

“Natural Selection at work”

I can’t tell whether you’re being serious or sarcastic, but I don’t think we should rule out the possibility that this reflects Mother Nature (or God) at work. It certainly would be very counterintuitive if the relationship ran in the opposite direction.


11 posted on 02/10/2010 9:25:41 AM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DrC; 101voodoo

Not natural selection; you get heart disease after your reproduce and get your children to a reasonable age for the most part. Have babies and die is a workable evolutionary strategy.

And the relationship does run in the other way - intelligence, as measured by education, correlates with later age at birth of first child for men and women, and fewer children for women (and maybe men.)


12 posted on 02/10/2010 9:31:40 AM PST by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DrC

Natural selection is mother nature at work.


13 posted on 02/10/2010 9:44:47 AM PST by 101voodoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: heartwood
And the relationship does run in the other way - intelligence, as measured by education, correlates with later age at birth of first child for men and women, and fewer children for women (and maybe men.)

What's your point? If intelligence means later age at birth then who makes that decision? It would b the more intelligent people, correct?

14 posted on 02/10/2010 9:47:38 AM PST by 101voodoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: heartwood

...fewer children for women (and maybe men.)

&&&
Yeah, we’re so smart we’re not reporducing at replacement rate.


15 posted on 02/10/2010 9:51:44 AM PST by Bigg Red (Palin/Hunter 2012 -- Bolton their Secretary of State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

The nanny state is doing its best to rid the world of smoking, in the name of health, mind you.

So their next plan would be?


16 posted on 02/10/2010 10:15:35 AM PST by GrannyAnn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: heartwood

“And the relationship does run in the other way - intelligence, as measured by education, correlates with later age at birth of first child for men and women, and fewer children for women (and maybe men.)”

I’m not sure this establishes that the relationship runs the other way. Surely you are not claiming that mere fecundity is species-preserving? The reality is that birth rates are highest in the most impoverished (and least educated) parts of the planet because statistically, you need many more children to ensure enough survive to take care of YOU in your old age. But parents with high education don’t need children for retirement security and moreover, in advanced more educated societies, life expectancy is much higher, so the fertility rate required for a stable population is much lower.

The original article implied that life expectancy was proportional to intelligence. The evidence you cite certainly does not indicate the opposite: quite the contrary, it is consistent with it. Those with intelligence (measured by education) may have fewer babies, but such babies are much more likely to survive, grow old etc. Moreover, affluent societies are so productive that workers can save for their own retirement without relying on their children to feed and care for them once their “productive” years have ended.


17 posted on 02/10/2010 10:20:39 AM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red

“Yeah, we’re so smart we’re not reporducing at replacement rate.”

You may want to check your premise on that one:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-19-fertility_N.htm


18 posted on 02/10/2010 10:23:39 AM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 101voodoo

“Natural selection is mother nature at work.”

Understood IF your comment was serious. I thought it might have been a more snarky observation along the line of “Darwin Award”—which is usually tossed out when an individual engages in transparently risky behavior with consequences that are tragic for that individual but perhaps beneficial for mankind as a whole.

Darwin’s conception of natural selection didn’t entail volitional behavior, i.e., the bright plumage that might confer a survival advantage in a particular species of bird wasn’t knowingly selected by any individual bird, but occurred instead through more of an “invisible hand” process that culminated in a particular outcome favoring one class of birds over another.

Thus, the humor associated with Darwin Awards extends to applying a process that appears “hard-wired” into nature to human behavior that is freely chosen and hence far from automatic. If we truly believed that people who did idiotic things leading to their own demise were “forced” by nature to take those actions—i.e., they truly were beyond their own control—then laughing about such incidents would appear to be gratuitously cruel.

Anyway, I infer from your response that you meant your comment seriously, not ironically, so the foregoing is simply an explanation of why I raised the question, NOT an attempt to create a mountain from a molehill etc.


19 posted on 02/10/2010 10:43:24 AM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DrC

It was serious and it’s still only a mole hill


20 posted on 02/10/2010 10:59:58 AM PST by 101voodoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 101voodoo

Poin is that intelligence is anti-selective in our present culture. When a quarter of the women with bachelor’s degrees don’t have children at all, compared to only a tenth of women without, and the women with degrees aren’t having babies at replacement rate, that trait (high intelligence with college degree as proxy) won’t long endure.

And since the men with degrees marry women with degrees for the most part it holds for them too, probably to a lesser degree.


21 posted on 02/10/2010 11:07:48 AM PST by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DrC

Re: your article. Who is having the babies? Who is replacing themselves? The big jump in child-bearing among 20-24 y.o.s - how is that demographic different than it was ten years ago?


22 posted on 02/10/2010 11:10:21 AM PST by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway
"Public health campaigns should focus on early life factors that have been shown to influence IQ levels and tackle social inequalities," she said in a comment on the study.

"At the same time, the public health messages for known risk factors such as diet may need to be simplified."


Oh boy. Another feather to further the loony left agenda.
23 posted on 02/10/2010 11:22:50 AM PST by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

IQ is correlated with cigarette smoking, income, weight, eating and drinking habits, access to health care, physical activity and health risk behaviors - to name just some of the correlates. Basically it’s lifestyle choices, not IQ per se.

Just as dropping out of school, pregnancy and drugs are correlated with race, it’s not skin color causing the problem, it’s lifestyle choices.


24 posted on 02/10/2010 11:22:58 AM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: heartwood

If it means to survive as a species we need to be dumb, then the government schools are actually doing us a favor?

Whoda thunk it?


25 posted on 02/10/2010 1:06:53 PM PST by 101voodoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DrC

Thanks for that link, but I would like to see more demographic info with that data, as I wonder how many illegals have bumped those numbers.


26 posted on 02/10/2010 1:25:29 PM PST by Bigg Red (Palin/Hunter 2012 -- Bolton their Secretary of State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: heartwood

“Who is having the babies? Who is replacing themselves? “

I don’t know the answer, but the article says:
“We do know that birthrates ticked up quite a bit among the most affluent,” says Stephanie Coontz, director of research and public education at the Council on Contemporary Families. “Kids are luxury goods, and some of this uptick may be stay-at-home moms.”

Thus, I don’t get the impression that the surge is among the least educated/intelligent in society. If the most educated were not replacing themselves, while the least educated were, then average education levels would be declining in the U.S. That is certainly not the case. You may argue that we send way too many people to college, but on average, the share of adults with college educations has risen steadily over time while the fraction with high school only educations has declined. These are encouraging trends from a Darwinian perspective.


27 posted on 02/10/2010 1:27:12 PM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson