What theory? Eugenics doesn’t work in real life. I’m critizising the movie on its’ own premise, not on scientific pedantry.
But you aren’t… There isn’t any clear delineation in the movie that would suggest they’re implying intellect is due to nature over nurture.
The reason this is still a debate in psychology is because it’s hard to achieve a statistically viable sample size for a conclusive study. To make a factual delineation you would have to know about the parents intellectual capabilities and then their children’s intellectual abilities. However, we would also need to study a child that they didn’t raise…
So, unless Idiocracy has a scene in it where the child of “smart parents” was raised by idiots, and remained smart… Then it’s impossible to know if they were implying bits an inherited trait.
Wait, I thought the clip was the setup of the premise. Like, the beginning. What other clip have I shared?
I was talking about the end of the movie…that’s what we were talking about from what you quoted.
At around 3 min in this clip. The narrator says they have 3 of the smartest kids in the world, and in the scene we can see the protagonist teaching his kids how to read. It also says his friends has 30 of the dumbest kids in the world, and he is teaching them how to chase each other with mallets.
the prologue constantly bangs on how much stupid people are fucking and smart people don’t.
People in lower income levels tend to have more kids with less access to decent public education… America being a land of inequality based on social status isn’t exactly a new idea.
You never see a focus on kids not being raised well, which would be a nuture standpoint.
In the clip you just posted their are kids being actively ignored by the parents who are arguing over infidelity… Not exactly great parenting.
Basically all idiots in the movie are coded like white “trash” trailer park people (except the President, maybe).
I did not get that impression… Maybe you just have some biased preconceptions about trailer parks?
Where is an example of a behaviorist stance by the movie?
How about the parts where you ignore the family structure and behavior of the “idiots” in the same scene? How about the protagonist teaching his kids to learn?
Ok, that’s like… three “nurture” mentions (although being smart doesn’t make you a good parent and being dumb doesn’t make you a bad one, so I’m already generous) against… how many mentions that dumb people do be fucking?
But you’ve clearly made up your mind and refuse to see the obvious classist notions of the movie. I can’t do any more than pointing out the obvious if you don’t want to see it.
although being smart doesn’t make you a good parent and being dumb doesn’t make you a bad one, so I’m already generous)
Lol, notice how you had to completely change the wording to make that somewhat palatable? Being smart doesn’t make you a good parent, but that’s not what we were talking about. Stability and access to a decent education is what nurtures intellect.
how many mentions that dumb people do be fucking?
So your argument is that only dumb people like to fuck?
Being smart doesn’t make you a good parent, but that’s not what we were talking about. Stability and access to a decent education is what nurtures intellect.
We’re talking about the basic premise of the movie, which is: “If smart people reproduce too little and dumb people reproduce too much, we’ll have a problem of stupidity.”
That’s a eugenicist stance. Period. It doesn’t rely on nature or nurture, or anything else. Mentally dishbled people have been sterilized, because they were “unfit for parenthood” due to eugenic arguments. Not, because of their genes, but because of their lacking capabilities of nurturing.
So your argument is that only dumb people like to fuck?
No, but that’s literally the thesis of the movie, which I dislike. 🙄
We’re talking about the basic premise of the movie, which is: “If smart people reproduce too little and dumb people reproduce too much, we’ll have a problem of stupidity.”
That’s your own flawed interpretation. The premise of the movie is about social “devolution”. Basically, an inverse of the normal social motivators occurs, where society no longer values concepts like intellect or education, and begins valuing things like fame, and risk taking behaviour.
It doesn’t rely on nature or nurture, or anything else.
The concept of intellect is inseparable from the concept of nature vs nurture.
Mentally dishbled people have been sterilized, because they were “unfit for parenthood” due to eugenic arguments.
The eugenics based argument is that mentally disabled people shouldn’t have kids because they believe their illness will be passed down to their children.
Eugenics is a part of a long line of debunked “racial science”, and is meant to be applied in the aims of isolating a certain type of people from society. It’s not applicable to an entire society with different ethnicities being affected the same.
No, but that’s literally the thesis of the movie, which I dislike. 🙄
Lol, there are only two “smart” people in the movie, and one of them is a former sex worker… They also have three kids.
So I don’t really think that tracks, more than likely the writers were trying to get across that dumb people like to inappropriatetly talk about their sex life in public.
I think you’re getting a little caught up on concepts like “breeding”, which you seem to think is only something that happens in eugenics. All mammals are the product of breeding, it’s just a semantic term for sex with added negative connotations because we typically use it while talking about animals.
The important part which you are ignoring is what could possibly explain the social devolution of every single person in a country within 500 years. Even if we were talking about selective breeding where we purposely paired stupid people together, this still would not explain every single person being an idiot. That would require a complete shift in social mores to the point where society as a whole sees no value in education or intellect.
You are just being willingly obtuse, or are just really ignorant at this point. I’ve provided rebuttals for all your examples, and youve failed to do the same for mine, other than saying I’m “cherry picking”, which really isn’t an argument.
That’s your own flawed interpretation. The premise of the movie is about social “devolution”. Basically, an inverse of the normal social motivators occurs, where society no longer values concepts like intellect or education, and begins valuing things like fame, and risk taking behaviour.
Damn, you must be a Yogi, if you’re that great at bending over backwards to make a point.
The concept of intellect is inseparable from the concept of nature vs nurture.
lol, wut?
The eugenics based argument is that mentally disabled people shouldn’t have kids because they believe their illness will be passed down to their children.
Eugenics is a part of a long line of debunked “racial science”, and is meant to be applied in the aims of isolating a certain type of people from society.
Yes, so far, so good
It’s not applicable to an entire society with different ethnicities being affected the same
Why not? Where in the handbook of eugenics does it say that it has to be explicitly racist? The whole idea of the “wrong people” having “too many” kids leads to a “degeneration” of society is the basic justification behind negative eugenics!
Lol, there are only two “smart” people in the movie, and one of them is a former sex worker… They also have three kids.
I’m talking about the setup. You can see the IQ of the smart couple in the beginning.
The important part which you are ignoring is what could possibly explain the social devolution of every single person in a country within 500 years.
I’m judging by the internal logic of the movie, not on the real world. I know that the real world doesn’t work like that at all. 🙄
You are just being willingly obtuse, or are just really ignorant at this point.
No, you! /j
I’ve provided rebuttals for all your examples, and youve failed to do the same for mine
I disagree
other than saying I’m “cherry picking”, which really isn’t an argument.
You’re misrepresenting the movie by cherry-picking, which invalidates your arguments.
But you aren’t… There isn’t any clear delineation in the movie that would suggest they’re implying intellect is due to nature over nurture.
The reason this is still a debate in psychology is because it’s hard to achieve a statistically viable sample size for a conclusive study. To make a factual delineation you would have to know about the parents intellectual capabilities and then their children’s intellectual abilities. However, we would also need to study a child that they didn’t raise…
So, unless Idiocracy has a scene in it where the child of “smart parents” was raised by idiots, and remained smart… Then it’s impossible to know if they were implying bits an inherited trait.
I was talking about the end of the movie…that’s what we were talking about from what you quoted.
At around 3 min in this clip. The narrator says they have 3 of the smartest kids in the world, and in the scene we can see the protagonist teaching his kids how to read. It also says his friends has 30 of the dumbest kids in the world, and he is teaching them how to chase each other with mallets.
People in lower income levels tend to have more kids with less access to decent public education… America being a land of inequality based on social status isn’t exactly a new idea.
In the clip you just posted their are kids being actively ignored by the parents who are arguing over infidelity… Not exactly great parenting.
I did not get that impression… Maybe you just have some biased preconceptions about trailer parks?
How about the parts where you ignore the family structure and behavior of the “idiots” in the same scene? How about the protagonist teaching his kids to learn?
Ok, that’s like… three “nurture” mentions (although being smart doesn’t make you a good parent and being dumb doesn’t make you a bad one, so I’m already generous) against… how many mentions that dumb people do be fucking?
But you’ve clearly made up your mind and refuse to see the obvious classist notions of the movie. I can’t do any more than pointing out the obvious if you don’t want to see it.
Lol, notice how you had to completely change the wording to make that somewhat palatable? Being smart doesn’t make you a good parent, but that’s not what we were talking about. Stability and access to a decent education is what nurtures intellect.
So your argument is that only dumb people like to fuck?
We’re talking about the basic premise of the movie, which is: “If smart people reproduce too little and dumb people reproduce too much, we’ll have a problem of stupidity.”
That’s a eugenicist stance. Period. It doesn’t rely on nature or nurture, or anything else. Mentally dishbled people have been sterilized, because they were “unfit for parenthood” due to eugenic arguments. Not, because of their genes, but because of their lacking capabilities of nurturing.
No, but that’s literally the thesis of the movie, which I dislike. 🙄
That’s your own flawed interpretation. The premise of the movie is about social “devolution”. Basically, an inverse of the normal social motivators occurs, where society no longer values concepts like intellect or education, and begins valuing things like fame, and risk taking behaviour.
The concept of intellect is inseparable from the concept of nature vs nurture.
The eugenics based argument is that mentally disabled people shouldn’t have kids because they believe their illness will be passed down to their children.
Eugenics is a part of a long line of debunked “racial science”, and is meant to be applied in the aims of isolating a certain type of people from society. It’s not applicable to an entire society with different ethnicities being affected the same.
Lol, there are only two “smart” people in the movie, and one of them is a former sex worker… They also have three kids.
So I don’t really think that tracks, more than likely the writers were trying to get across that dumb people like to inappropriatetly talk about their sex life in public.
I think you’re getting a little caught up on concepts like “breeding”, which you seem to think is only something that happens in eugenics. All mammals are the product of breeding, it’s just a semantic term for sex with added negative connotations because we typically use it while talking about animals.
The important part which you are ignoring is what could possibly explain the social devolution of every single person in a country within 500 years. Even if we were talking about selective breeding where we purposely paired stupid people together, this still would not explain every single person being an idiot. That would require a complete shift in social mores to the point where society as a whole sees no value in education or intellect.
You are just being willingly obtuse, or are just really ignorant at this point. I’ve provided rebuttals for all your examples, and youve failed to do the same for mine, other than saying I’m “cherry picking”, which really isn’t an argument.
Damn, you must be a Yogi, if you’re that great at bending over backwards to make a point.
lol, wut?
That included the “mental illness” of “feeble mindedness” and “promiscuity” of Carrie Buck. “Feeble mindedness” was once determined by IQ tests, btw. Noticing a pattern already?
Yes, so far, so good
Why not? Where in the handbook of eugenics does it say that it has to be explicitly racist? The whole idea of the “wrong people” having “too many” kids leads to a “degeneration” of society is the basic justification behind negative eugenics!
I’m talking about the setup. You can see the IQ of the smart couple in the beginning.
I’m judging by the internal logic of the movie, not on the real world. I know that the real world doesn’t work like that at all. 🙄
No, you! /j
I disagree
You’re misrepresenting the movie by cherry-picking, which invalidates your arguments.