<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:23 AM, rex <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rex@nosyntax.net" target="_blank">rex@nosyntax.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Kelly Anderson <<a href="mailto:kellycoinguy@gmail.com" target="_blank">kellycoinguy@gmail.com</a>> [2013-10-27 11:22]:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Anders Sandberg <[1]<a href="mailto:anders@aleph.se" target="_blank">anders@aleph.se</a>><div class="im"><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
Note that you would need to pay *a lot*. The below 1 SD population is<br>
around 15%, so in the US that would be about 47 million people you need<br>
to pay off. I am not sure what the going price for getting sterilized<br>
is, but at least I expect it to be on the order of a few thousand<br>
dollars - <br></div><div class="im">
There is a successful private endeavor to sterilize female drug addicts<br>
for as little as $300.<br></div>
[2]<a href="http://www.projectprevention.org" target="_blank">http://www.<u></u>projectprevention.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hello Kelly,<br>
<br>
Note that the organization also offers payment for long-term birth<br>
control, which is IMO a much better option. Sterilization, like suicide,<br>
is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Still, I'm betting that the limits of their success are based on how much money they have to hand out, not how many people sign up. I agree that long term birth control is equally good. I came to my controversial support of this group due to the fact that my children's birth mother popped out six or eight kids AFTER she knew DCFS was going to take them away as soon as they found them, no matter what. She just loved being preggers and high.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
Unfortunately, low IQ apparently is negatively correlated with drug use.<br>
At least in one study.<br></div>
[3]<a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/smart-people-illegal-drugs-intelligent-people-dont-always-do-right-thing-371056" target="_blank">http://www.ibtimes.com/<u></u>smart-people-illegal-drugs-<u></u>intelligent-people-dont-<u></u>always-do-right-thing-371056</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Careful. The study finds an odds ratio > 1 for high IQ & drug use, but it does not follow that low IQ has a negative correlation with drug<br>
use. To see why, consider a "\__/" shaped relationship between IQ and drug<br>
use. If that were the case, both high- and low-IQs would have a positive<br>
correlation with drug use.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yeah, well, that's why some people say you should publish ALL your data. Not just mine it for a headline.</div><div><br></div><div>-Kelly</div><div><br></div>
</div></div></div>