Your question is interesting, but the post just wasn't about that. Your question is oddly narrow. There's much more (and less) difference between immigrants and natives than just attitudes.
The adoptees were NOT adopted for the benefit of the NATION, nor even to raise their IQs. The adoptors did it for their own reasons.
Low-ish-IQ people can, and do, support themselves, especially in freer societies.
In the US, and I assume also in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most if not all EU countries, adults with reported income at some level below the national median receive substantial subsidies at public expense. A low-IQ individual's total income from earnings and cash subsidies and/or other benefits provided at public expense may suffice to meet his basic needs, but from the standpoint of collective welfare he can properly be classified as a "taker" if the total cost of the unearned benefits he receives at public expense over the course of his lifetime exceeds the aggregate sum of tax revenue he contributes.
Yes of course. Adoption is a personal thing, although I do sometimes find it odd people go to exotic places to adopt when many desperate kids are in their own country.
I also agree lowish IQ people can do all right. But we should be wary of artificially adding to the pool.
About motivation: my guess is that in most cases when residents of first-world nations adopt black or brown children from third-world locales the adoptive parents are imbued with prevalent woke/green notions -- the most pertinent of which being: a) the belief that human population growth is spoiling the environment and depleting resources (a belief that I share) and hence that siring or bearing children is ethically reprehensible and b) white guilt, i.e., the notion that the prevalence of poverty and squalor in third-world regions is largely due to oppression by racist white colonizers and exploiters, for which relatively well-off first-world white people have an ethical obligation to make amends in some way.
PS: As I am perturbed by the persistent trend of dysgenic fertility (i.e., inverse correlation between adult female intelligence and childbearing) throughout the First World, including northeast Asia, I do not agree with the no-childbearing ethic as it applies to those of relatively high intelligence.
It is the high IQ people who embrace these fads. The sub 90 brigade can't even understand them and are unaffected.
The belief having kids is somehow bad is not a view I share. People need to have more children and we should do more to help parents, tax incentives etc.
"On the international PISA tests of science, reading, and math, countries with IQs around 84 score about one standard deviation below Sweden."
I'm not sure what this means: a) that the median PISA score of children who were adopted by Swedes from countries where the median IQ score is about 84 -- i.e., about one standard deviation below that of Swedish natives -- and tested in Sweden after being brought up there is likewise about one standard deviation below that of native Swedes; or b) that the median PISA score of students in countries where median IQ is ~84 is about one standard deviation below that of Swedish natives?
If a) is correct the happy talk about grades may amount to little more than putting lipstick on a pig if, as seems likely, most Swedish schoolteachers are woke-ish and have leeway for subjective judgment in assigning course grades.
My younger brother (age 19 currently) was adopted from Ethiopia, grew up in the US from 6 months onwards. I’ve measured his IQ (avg of multiple testing) @ 96, which I’m pretty happy w/ given his home country average (though obviously I don’t know his genetic potential). He has four other biological brothers w/ IQs ranging 114-146, which poses some problems however. It’s further confounded by the fact that he was prescribed subQ HGH injections from age 9-18 for congenital short stature in addition to an ADHD-indicated amphetamine from age 13-17. I think the HGH physical grew his head. I wouldn’t characterize this type of adoption as an unalloyed good; there have been significant challenges. But, “the wonder of international adoption” is a real phenomenon, if resources are available to address challenges.
Surely these just reinforce the notion that mixing people from different locations with quite different attitudes is a recipe for disaster.
It may drag them up a few points but what is the benefit for the advanced nation? More low IQ people to support?
Your question is interesting, but the post just wasn't about that. Your question is oddly narrow. There's much more (and less) difference between immigrants and natives than just attitudes.
The adoptees were NOT adopted for the benefit of the NATION, nor even to raise their IQs. The adoptors did it for their own reasons.
Low-ish-IQ people can, and do, support themselves, especially in freer societies.
Depends on what you mean by "support themselves."
In the US, and I assume also in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most if not all EU countries, adults with reported income at some level below the national median receive substantial subsidies at public expense. A low-IQ individual's total income from earnings and cash subsidies and/or other benefits provided at public expense may suffice to meet his basic needs, but from the standpoint of collective welfare he can properly be classified as a "taker" if the total cost of the unearned benefits he receives at public expense over the course of his lifetime exceeds the aggregate sum of tax revenue he contributes.
Another point to consider: per capita, low-IQ people are more crime-prone than others. https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/legal-and-political-magazines/intelligence-and-crime
Yes of course. Adoption is a personal thing, although I do sometimes find it odd people go to exotic places to adopt when many desperate kids are in their own country.
I also agree lowish IQ people can do all right. But we should be wary of artificially adding to the pool.
About motivation: my guess is that in most cases when residents of first-world nations adopt black or brown children from third-world locales the adoptive parents are imbued with prevalent woke/green notions -- the most pertinent of which being: a) the belief that human population growth is spoiling the environment and depleting resources (a belief that I share) and hence that siring or bearing children is ethically reprehensible and b) white guilt, i.e., the notion that the prevalence of poverty and squalor in third-world regions is largely due to oppression by racist white colonizers and exploiters, for which relatively well-off first-world white people have an ethical obligation to make amends in some way.
PS: As I am perturbed by the persistent trend of dysgenic fertility (i.e., inverse correlation between adult female intelligence and childbearing) throughout the First World, including northeast Asia, I do not agree with the no-childbearing ethic as it applies to those of relatively high intelligence.
It is the high IQ people who embrace these fads. The sub 90 brigade can't even understand them and are unaffected.
The belief having kids is somehow bad is not a view I share. People need to have more children and we should do more to help parents, tax incentives etc.
"On the international PISA tests of science, reading, and math, countries with IQs around 84 score about one standard deviation below Sweden."
I'm not sure what this means: a) that the median PISA score of children who were adopted by Swedes from countries where the median IQ score is about 84 -- i.e., about one standard deviation below that of Swedish natives -- and tested in Sweden after being brought up there is likewise about one standard deviation below that of native Swedes; or b) that the median PISA score of students in countries where median IQ is ~84 is about one standard deviation below that of Swedish natives?
If a) is correct the happy talk about grades may amount to little more than putting lipstick on a pig if, as seems likely, most Swedish schoolteachers are woke-ish and have leeway for subjective judgment in assigning course grades.
PS
If b) is correct, on the other hand, what about the median PISA scores of those adopted children as compared with that of Swedish natives?
If only there were another way to explain grades given in first world public schools. Ah well.
Ah, now I feel good. Thanks, Bryan.
My younger brother (age 19 currently) was adopted from Ethiopia, grew up in the US from 6 months onwards. I’ve measured his IQ (avg of multiple testing) @ 96, which I’m pretty happy w/ given his home country average (though obviously I don’t know his genetic potential). He has four other biological brothers w/ IQs ranging 114-146, which poses some problems however. It’s further confounded by the fact that he was prescribed subQ HGH injections from age 9-18 for congenital short stature in addition to an ADHD-indicated amphetamine from age 13-17. I think the HGH physical grew his head. I wouldn’t characterize this type of adoption as an unalloyed good; there have been significant challenges. But, “the wonder of international adoption” is a real phenomenon, if resources are available to address challenges.
*non-biological brothers