Skip to comments.Obama Adviser Argued: Kids from Big Families Have Lower IQs
Posted on 02/22/2012 5:33:47 PM PST by Nachum
(CNSNews.com) - John P. Holdren, the top science adviser to President Barack Obama, wrote in a book he co-authored with population control advocates Paul and Anne Ehrlich that children from larger families have lower IQs.
The book"Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions"argued that the United States government had a responsibility to halt the growth of the American population.
It surely is no accident that so many of the most successful individuals are first or only children, wrote Holdren and the Ehrlichs, nor that children of large families (particularly with more than four children), whatever their economic status, on the average perform less well in school and show lower I.Q. scores than their peers from small families.
Holdren and the Ehrlichs published "Human Ecology" with W.H. Freeman and Company in 1973. In June 2000, a study published in American Pyschologist debunked the notion that children in larger families have lower I.Q.s. But when Holdren appeared in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee in 2009 for a confirmation hearing on his appointment to run the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, he continued to argue for the benefits of smaller families on other bases.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Ah, ok, so he hates Mexicans.
Is this an admission of F&F culpability?
And thus, a perfect example of the idiocy, bigotry, bias and worthless value of science today, courtesy of government controlled schools. Thank the Lord that I was able to send my daughters to private school.
What is this asshat suggesting? That we institute China’s “one child” policy?
What a complete jackass!
I’m the last of 6 kids. I went to college on a full academic scholarship. My mother was the last of nine kids. She did her grad work at Cornell.
Surely any scientist worth his sodium chloride would want to look into whether this is true and if so why it would be... could it just be that genius parents disdain having a large set of offspring more than non-genius parents? That it’s a matter of personal taste?
I’m sure he’s even more concerned about the average IQ of children born in Washington DC.
“Bad Stuff”, by Barak Obama:
He’s from AMERICA....? Yeah, right.
Saint Catherine of Sienna, who gave extremely useful advice to the Pope, among her other accomplishments, was the 25th child of her mercantile parents.
What if they had stopped at 24?
Sociology is not a science.
Read Sec 10 of the UN Global Biodiversity Assessment, A document related to Agenda 21 which has been under inplementation by Ex. Order since 1994. Sec. 10 calls for an 80% reduction in human population.
Yeah, that Beethoven was one underachiever.
1. As the youngest of seven children, I can say it depends on the family. My siblings and I together have six college degrees, a D.BA, four Masters Degrees, two teaching credentials, three Professional Engineer certifications, and a JD. and law license.
2. Also, IQ isn’t everything. Think of the kids with high IQs who are living in a tent in the Occupy camp. I’m sure some of them came from small families where they managed to avoid learning the life skills and work ethic that would serve them well in the working world. Occupy isn’t exactly full of people who attended community college and got a paying job or a transfer to a university.
Benjamin Franklin was the 15th child born to his father.
This falsifies that ridiculous claim because Ben Franklin was brilliant in many different areas—more so than 99.9% of all people born in the world.
This is more about population control and the conditioning of people to think small families are better when larger families have been the staple of American families—up until the Marxists and Malthusians took control of the schools and started brainwashing and conditioning and destroying the Virtues which created the sacrifice needed for large families.
Dr. Mengele errr sorry John P. Holdren has decided that we have too many kids and he wants it stopped.
His next experiment will be to dye the eyes of twins to make them all blue-eyed.
Nazification isn’t far off.
In a sensational public confession a leading climatologist, Peter Gleick has admitted to taking part in a high-profile climate emails forgery that has backfired; says it was done to intentionally injure skeptic foundation.
While pursuing his M.S., Gleick also worked as a research and teaching associate with Professor John Holdren, who became his mentor (and fly-fishing instructor). It was clear to me even then that water was an underappreciated and understudied resource, and a source of real future problems, Gleick says. Holdren is now the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and President Barack Obamas science adviser.
(much more at link)
Gotta meet those Agenda 21 goals.
I swear that it’s come to the point where we have to say “PROVE IT!” To these people both in the Obama Administration and to Politicians, Pundits and Journalists.
They have gotten so used to being able to say anything they want no matter how outrageous and getting away with it. The time has long since passed where we the people need to say Prove it.
I would suggest postpartum abortions should be allowed for those deemed to be deficient by an independent expert (me) ... say we start with Holdren and the Ehrlichs as test cases to determine the viability of the model. Possibly we should ask their input on the model before we execute it.
John Holdren: Obama’s “Science Czar”.
(other Czars of note, Michael Taylor-was Vice Pres. of Monsanto: Obama’s “Food Safety Czar”!!!! (tee hee!)
Hungary and France are trying to get Monsanto the hell outta their countries!
Kevin Jennings: was Obama’s “Safe School Czar”!!! -his group promoted “fisting” to school children!!!! (Yikes!)
well, the list goes on of Obama’s Czars and how inappropriate they are for Americans, but then, Obama’s not really a proud America....ooops!
1. Require everyone to buy health insurance.
2. Force insurance to provide birth control.
3. Force everyone to use birth control?
The persistence of the idea of “overpopulation” in a world where birth rates are definitely known to be declining leads me to believe that it and other pernicious unscientific concepts (Global Warming most notably) will be nearly impossible to eradicate.
Marxism and its “scientific” criticisms of history and markets were annihilated by the events of the last several decades; Marx’s predictions were proven utterly wrong so completely that virtually no one, not even people like Bill Ayers, identifies himself as a Marxist anymore.
The problem is, basic human feelings like envy, greed, and the need to control others still required a scientific basis. The constituency of hating your neighbor for his possessions was still enormous. Envy still required an ideology with a “scientific” foundation, and things like Global Warming and population control serve that function.
“. . .argued that the United States government had a responsibility to halt the growth of the American population.
Apparently these jerkweeds don’t have enough advanced degrees - if they’d looked into our demographics in any depth, they’d see that the only thing keeping us from negative population growth has been immigration. And I haven’t noticed them doing anything to discourage immigration, at least not the illegal “undocumented” variety.
Not that negative population growth would be a good thing - Europe is contraceiving and aborting its population into a shell of itself, a shell soon to be filled by Mohammedens. It won’t take long for us to see how that all works out.
Like the Kennedys? :)
Statistics also show that families that live closer to the boarder with Canada do better in school.
“Benjamin Franklin was the 15th child born to his father.
This falsifies that ridiculous claim”
Which of these would you say that your statement falls under?
Next these sick bastards will be measuring crania with calipers.
“Like the Kennedys? :)”
I might attribute that to the inbreeding of old-money New England types. The next generation might not make it to their early teens.
John P. Holdren, the top science adviser to Barack Obama,
Trofim Lysenko, the top science adviser to Josef Stalin,
The perfect argument against abortion and sociology. (I’ll have to look up Thomas Aquinas’ and Theresa of Avila’s sibling-count.)
It’s ex post facto data - not possible to come to any causal conclusions. Plus the effect is very small.
The Kennedys???!!! Cheats and plagiarists shouldn’t count.
Try the Buckleys.
Geez, Domestic Church, given your screen name you probably believe in God, you're on a conservative website and you are the sixth of six, all the intellectually superior studies by liberals regarding IQ indicate you should barely be able to spell the word cat.
The anti-people, anti-population wing of the liberal mindset are truly diseased people that will make any bald-faced lie to further their anti-human agenda.
Though virtually EVERYTHING his dire, cataclysmic forecasts predicted has FAILED to come to pass, Paul R. Ehrlich has refused to admit either that his reasoning or totalitarian schemes were in any way wrong.
And it should be noted that he is still adored by the MMGW crowd as the "visionary" whose schemes blazed the trail for their own con game.
This is pure propaganda. Remember that studies show "conservatives have lower IQ's?"
Anything of value is automatically degraded by the left.
It appears to be true that a high percentage of successful people are first children. However, that's not the same as saying that a high percentage of first children are successful people. It may be that on average, first children are no more successful than their younger siblings. That is, there may be a lot of average and even unsuccessful first children out there. I've never seen any figures on that, just on the converse, that successful people tend to be first children.
With regard to average IQ of large families, the larger the sample, the more likely the sample average is close to the population average. Thus one would expect that the average IQ of a large family is closer to population average IQ than would be the case for smaller families. Nothing at work here except mathematics.
The people who financed and had constructed the Georgia Guidestones only want humanity at 500 million which is a bit higher than an 80% reduction.
I remember reading studies from my undergrad days that said just the opposite was true
Lies, damn lies, and statistics being used by eugenists
Maybe, I should have used the word “helps” falsify since it could be an exception—but then, my problem was with the entire premise which makes false assumptions. It is not worth refuting with a scientific paper.
First born children are most likely to get more individual attention which correlates with intelligence.
Oldest children are more likely to be the scientists and innovators, etc., because of the unshared attention given by adults. They learn far more than with siblings, close to their own age-—which takes up their time, but is not particularly stimulating to the intellect. In fact, it could retard language development and intellectual concepts and take away time from pursuits, such as music lessons, known to increase IQ.
The more individual time spent with adults, increases IQ—it is why Lenin invented Day Cares so children would learn conformity and be less intelligent.
Many so called parents put their children in day cares which retards intelligence since they copy other 2 year olds instead of adults. They pick up bad behavior and simplistic language instead of complex language and civil, polite behavior which should be modeled from the nurturing mother who should be the first teacher in the formative years of life so trust in human beings form.
We have destroyed the family unit—which is what transfers the ability to be an exceptional, moral person whether the 6th or 7th child. I was the 4th and did quite well in school and life, and my 5th brother is far more intelligent than any of his siblings.
Here’s the accomplishments of the 12 siblings in my family:
BSCE, Licensed Civil Engineer, Master’s in Strategic Planning, 30+ years US Army/Army Reserve
BSEE, Licensed Electrical Engineer (power systems)
Bookkeeper and stay-at-home mom
BA, and stay-at-home mom
BA, Accountant, Nursing Degree and stay-at-home mom
BA Special Education degree & teacher’s certification
BSEE, Licensed Electrical Engineer (computer memory)
BSEE, Licensed Electrical Engineer (power)
BA, Accountant and stay-at-home mom
BA, JD, Lawyer
BA, Bookkeeper and stay-at-home mom
...so I guess we’re all just a bunch of dopes. good thing we didn’t have a really big family.
My Dad (RIP) would be really pissed to find out he wasted a lot of college money...
Yes, but just think how smart Benjamin Franklin would have been if he had been an only child. Instead of just inventing bifocals, lightning rods, Franklin stoves, electricity, and a few other things, he might have invented computers, televisions, and microwave ovens.
I have 8 kids with the same woman. What are the rest of you doing?
Actually I hate the fact that the number of children anyone has is a subject that people want to inject their opinions. You have none and I will have 10 and later we will go out for beers.
“Many so called parents put their children in day cares which retards intelligence since they copy other 2 year olds instead of adults. They pick up bad behavior and simplistic language instead of complex language and civil, polite behavior which should be modeled from the nurturing mother who should be the first teacher in the formative years of life so trust in human beings form.”
This is a most succinct explanation for this “phenomenon”.
I had sixteen years of the full and undivided attention of a stay-at-home mom who graduated college at 18. I would not compromise on this point with my ex. I told her I would work three jobs or possibly rob banks if she would stay home for five years after we had a child (in reality, we could have made it on either of our incomes at the time).
Well, I don’t have any kids.
If you repeat a lie long enough it becomes the truth.
And if IQ is a genetic trait...how can the genes of a child be affected by the number of children the mother has. ..the genes of child one does not know if it going to be one of one or one of a hundred>
“Lies, damn lies, and statistics being used by eugenists”
There are scientific studies (which almost never rely solely on statistics) and then there are polemics. This is an example of the second. Today many intelligent people opt to have small families in the more developed countries. Therefore the statistical findings indicate no cause dealing with the size of the family.
"What a complete jackass!"
Interesting. Of my working class parents, neither of whom advanced beyond the eighth grade, three of their six sons qualified for Mensa.