Comments on: Survival of the Fittest http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest The Weblog of Erik J. Barzeski Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:29:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Erik J. Barzeski http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest#comment-44726 Erik J. Barzeski Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:20:29 +0000 http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest/#comment-44726 [quote comment="44724"]Erik, I wanted you to know that I have used your article in my 'survival of the fittest' paper for philosophy. I used it as an example of what 'survival of the fittest' means to our society. This is so far off from what it means to me. In fact my whole paper is based on bacteria specifically Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Thank You![/quote] Laura, I have only three things to say:<ol><li>If you're citing blog entries for your research paper, that doesn't bode well for your academic career.</li><li>If your paper is on bacteria and the resistance they build up to certain drugs, you really shouldn't be citing articles (or blog entries) that have <em>nothing</em> to do with bacteria.</li><li>"Survival of the Fittest" is a bit of a silly title, but the reasoning is still valid: if "survival" is determined by reproducing, and stupid people reproduce more, they are - by definition - "fittest."</li></ol>Please do yourself a favor and remove any mention or citation of this in your paper. laura said on December 2, 2007:

Erik, I wanted you to know that I have used your article in my 'survival of the fittest' paper for philosophy. I used it as an example of what 'survival of the fittest' means to our society. This is so far off from what it means to me. In fact my whole paper is based on bacteria specifically Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Thank You!

Laura, I have only three things to say:

  1. If you're citing blog entries for your research paper, that doesn't bode well for your academic career.
  2. If your paper is on bacteria and the resistance they build up to certain drugs, you really shouldn't be citing articles (or blog entries) that have nothing to do with bacteria.
  3. "Survival of the Fittest" is a bit of a silly title, but the reasoning is still valid: if "survival" is determined by reproducing, and stupid people reproduce more, they are - by definition - "fittest."

Please do yourself a favor and remove any mention or citation of this in your paper.

]]> By: laura http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest#comment-44724 laura Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:55:11 +0000 http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest/#comment-44724 Erik, I wanted you to know that I have used your article in my 'survival of the fittest' paper for philosophy. I used it as an example of what 'survival of the fittest' means to our society. This is so far off from what it means to me. In fact my whole paper is based on bacteria specifically Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Thank You! Erik, I wanted you to know that I have used your article in my 'survival of the fittest' paper for philosophy. I used it as an example of what 'survival of the fittest' means to our society. This is so far off from what it means to me. In fact my whole paper is based on bacteria specifically Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Thank You!

]]> By: Borris and Morris http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest#comment-3042 Borris and Morris Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:45:25 +0000 http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest/#comment-3042 Do you people have lives? Seriously though, this person has gone to some lengths to post this topic, and half of you guys are comming out with irrelevant responses and even trying to hurl vulgarities, just because you come from from a poorer background and don't know any better (shame on you anglus) Do you people have lives? Seriously though, this person has gone to some lengths to post this topic, and half of you guys are comming out with irrelevant responses and even trying to hurl vulgarities, just because you come from from a poorer background and don't know any better (shame on you anglus)

]]> By: Doris http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest#comment-3041 Doris Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:16:07 +0000 http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest/#comment-3041 Most of the male doctors I know have at least 5 children. Many of the female doctors stopped at 2. (I do mean physicians, not PhD's). Could this be a gender thing? A family next door was asked to move by the home owner after they added a set of twins to the litter. They already had 7 children living in a 3 bedroom home. He was a geek too, and a religious nut. Most of the people I know are computer geeks - and have no more than 3 children for the most part. Many of them have only 1. This seems to be a parallel for the intelligence versus breeding question. Most of the male doctors I know have at least 5 children. Many of the female doctors stopped at 2. (I do mean physicians, not PhD's). Could this be a gender thing?

A family next door was asked to move by the home owner after they added a set of twins to the litter. They already had 7 children living in a 3 bedroom home. He was a geek too, and a religious nut.

Most of the people I know are computer geeks - and have no more than 3 children for the most part. Many of them have only 1. This seems to be a parallel for the intelligence versus breeding question.

]]> By: Tom http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest#comment-3040 Tom Fri, 01 Aug 2003 15:15:49 +0000 http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest/#comment-3040 The lowering intelligence worries me. Society surely reverses survival of the fittest by supporting the less able, so that they can breed - and often have little else productive to fill their lives. Another thought. Less intelligent people seem to be happier people I have found. I've got quite a few braincells myself, and find myself constantly dissatisfied, wanting more. Simpler folk do not appear to suffer from this. The lowering intelligence worries me. Society surely reverses survival of the fittest by supporting the less able, so that they can breed - and often have little else productive to fill their lives.

Another thought. Less intelligent people seem to be happier people I have found. I've got quite a few braincells myself, and find myself constantly dissatisfied, wanting more. Simpler folk do not appear to suffer from this.

]]> By: /dev/null http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest#comment-3045 /dev/null Thu, 22 May 2003 11:47:25 +0000 http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest/#comment-3045 <strong>Survival of the 'Fittest'?</strong> A very interesting read here, well worth taking a few minutes to read about and think. Suddenly it all makes sense! And I have to agree with Erik's final statement: Intelligence isn't sexually (genetically) rewarded in our society. Oh, so... Survival of the 'Fittest'?

A very interesting read here, well worth taking a few minutes to read about and think. Suddenly it all makes sense! And I have to agree with Erik's final statement: Intelligence isn't sexually (genetically) rewarded in our society. Oh, so...

]]> By: Erik J. Barzeski http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest#comment-3039 Erik J. Barzeski Fri, 09 May 2003 18:10:59 +0000 http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest/#comment-3039 Anglus, you're a bit off. By definition, the "more intelligent" people are going to be outvoted by the majority of the population, unless their votes (for elected officials or whatever) happen to line up with what the "rest" of the people want. And as for thinking of "how it will be used by others" - that's sure as hell not the point of research. Science is, at its core, about exploration. Thank goodness ethics are left in the hand of those who apply technological and scientific advances, because if scientists had to wrestle with that, we'd still be living in the stone age. This is not to say that scientists shouldn't consider the ethics of what they do - they should in certain areas. But all the time? No. Fire has been used to kill people, but early scientists just noted that it prepared food and prevented them from freezing to death. Anglus, you're a bit off. By definition, the "more intelligent" people are going to be outvoted by the majority of the population, unless their votes (for elected officials or whatever) happen to line up with what the "rest" of the people want.

And as for thinking of "how it will be used by others" - that's sure as hell not the point of research. Science is, at its core, about exploration. Thank goodness ethics are left in the hand of those who apply technological and scientific advances, because if scientists had to wrestle with that, we'd still be living in the stone age.

This is not to say that scientists shouldn't consider the ethics of what they do - they should in certain areas. But all the time? No. Fire has been used to kill people, but early scientists just noted that it prepared food and prevented them from freezing to death.

]]> By: vinay venkatesh http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest#comment-3038 vinay venkatesh Fri, 09 May 2003 18:02:28 +0000 http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest/#comment-3038 in response to mikey. If you look at what Erik is saying, he specifically talks about ignoring IQ's and looking at actions. In his other article he talks about achievements of people like Einstein rather than their IQ. He only wrote this article in response to what someone else had written regarding IQ's. Read the article before bashing man. Plus just because I achieve a lot of things, doesn't make me more intelligent than an unused super intelligent brain of some other person. It just makes me of more use to the practical world. I'm sure that made no sense, so pardon me. in response to mikey. If you look at what Erik is saying, he specifically talks about ignoring IQ's and looking at actions. In his other article he talks about achievements of people like Einstein rather than their IQ. He only wrote this article in response to what someone else had written regarding IQ's. Read the article before bashing man.

Plus just because I achieve a lot of things, doesn't make me more intelligent than an unused super intelligent brain of some other person. It just makes me of more use to the practical world.

I'm sure that made no sense, so pardon me.

]]> By: anglus http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest#comment-3037 anglus Fri, 09 May 2003 15:58:27 +0000 http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest/#comment-3037 The crazy part is that really intelligent people don't start wars. Really intelligent people built things and help people. So if successful and intelligent people run the world why do we have problems; Also if intelligent people are so smart why do they let these so call dumb sh*#@ get away with everything. For what knowledge or intelligent people don’t think about what they create and how it will be used by others; or the so called intelligent ones. Just thing of it this way “we are not intelligent until we are all intelligent”. Too bad we have all this knowledge already and still can’t get it right. So keep on thinking it dumb sh*#@ that f*(! everything up. The crazy part is that really intelligent people don't start wars. Really intelligent people built things and help people. So if successful and intelligent people run the world why do we have problems; Also if intelligent people are so smart why do they let these so call dumb sh*#@ get away with everything. For what knowledge or intelligent people don’t think about what they create and how it will be used by others; or the so called intelligent ones. Just thing of it this way “we are not intelligent until we are all intelligent”. Too bad we have all this knowledge already and still can’t get it right. So keep on thinking it dumb sh*#@ that f*(! everything up.

]]> By: codepoet http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest#comment-3036 codepoet Thu, 08 May 2003 18:21:16 +0000 http://nslog.com/2003/05/07/survival_of_the_fittest/#comment-3036 Completely off-topic: The rythym method is not the method preferred by Catholics. It's the sympto-thermal method, which has a large basis in reproductive science and is used both to GET pregnant AND to prevent it. Google for it and read up. Completely off-topic:

The rythym method is not the method preferred by Catholics. It's the sympto-thermal method, which has a large basis in reproductive science and is used both to GET pregnant AND to prevent it. Google for it and read up.

]]>