Orton's Arm

Yeah. A veteran QB like Bledsoe really struggled in his first eight games in Buffalo, because he lacked familiarity with the offense. He's played a lot better since. Or take Kelly Holcomb. Would you say 2004 was his rookie year, on the basis that he was unfamiliar with the offense and his supporting cast? At some point, you have to stop thinking of Losman as a rookie. He's in his third year. Unless he starts looking like a real QB in the second half of the season, the Bills will need to move on.

I remember Ramius calling both me and my ideas stupid, and himself quite knowledgeable, but I don't recall him making much effort to back any of this up with actual evidence. If Ramius was actually trying to provide deep insight here, you'd have some excuse for saying I'm not capable of understanding his point. The rest of your post focuses on what you feel are my personal intellectual shortcomings. Even given the erroneous assumption you're right about these, your correctness would not disprove the usefulness of a eugenics program. Instead of merely claiming that I don't understand the word "heritablity," show why you feel a correct definition of the word would undermine the utility of a eugenics program. (For what it's worth, I do understand the word, as one might gather from the fact that I posted its definition from dictionary.com.) I feel you're a smart person who, for whatever reason, has chosen the weaker side of an argument. You're doing a more convincing job than I probably could, largely because you're using tactics which I generally eschew. One of those tactics is to leave something half said. The "heritability" thing is one example of this. For the purposes of the discussion, the word "heritability" means the portion of variation in an observable trait that's driven by genetics. For instance, let's say 75% of variation in height was caused by genetics; the other 25% by diet and other environmental factors. The heritability for height would be 75%. That 75% doesn't refer to the chances of height-related genes getting passed onto the next generation. Most of the time, a gene has only a 50% chance of being passed onto the next generation. (There are exceptions to this, called "selfish genes." These, I believe, are rare.) For the purposes of the above example, genetics play a large role in determining people's heights. On average, a tall person will be significantly more likely to pass genes for tallness onto the next generation than a short person would be. This is because something observable (such as height) is a snapshot into the person's underlying genetic code. Odds are it's only a partial snapshot, and that there will be recessive genes for height which aren't made physically manifest. But even a partial snapshot is enough to make a selective breeding program work. Such programs have turned the wolf into countless breeds of dogs, with highly varying levels of intelligence. Such programs have produced breeds of horses designed for war, for racing, and for farming. They've produced numerous breeds of cats; with differing personalities and levels of intelligence. Selective breeding programs also work for plants, and have been used to create the corn plant, various types of flowers, and other plants. Selective breeding works for animals, including the area of intelligence. There's a temptation to pretend people aren't affected by the same laws of genetics plants and animals are. But as indicated in the paper with 52 signatories, 40 - 80% of the variation in human intelligence can be explained by genetics. If you succeed in persuading smart people to have more kids than stupid people, the population will get smarter. There's little reasonable room for doubt on that point. The real question is whether we should be making the population smarter. To me, it's a question of priorities. How important is it to ensure the next generation of children have the mental tools to succeed as individuals? How important is it to ensure the next generation has the pool of bright people needed to succeed as a group? Are there other questions so important they make these two questions irrelevant? I don't believe there are. To me, it's a question of balance: the U.S. should preserve the freedom of adults to make their own reproductive choices, while at the same time doing what it can for the next generation.

It appears you've missed the point entirely. Bungee Jumper wrote the following: The point of my four examples is that a eugenics program will work regardless of whether genes for high I.Q. are dominant or recessive, or whether 1 gene or 100 genes are involved in determining intelligence. If you care to dispute this point, please do so by illustrating the scientific basis of whatever objections you come up with. If you continue to restrict yourself to fact-free personal invective, I will assume it's because you're incapable of defending your point in any other way.

Amen to that. But it could also be a case where certain plays are being called to figure out various players' strengths. If the coaching staff isn't in the mode of evaluating players such as Losman, it should be. Fairchild might say to Losman, "execute plays X, Y, and Z every week. If you're still messing these plays up by the end of the season, they're probably not part of your strengths. We'll take that into account when deciding where to go with the QB position."

Apparently you missed my post to Bungee Jumper where I explained the reason for these four examples.

You've hit the nail squarely on the head, and have driven it cleanly into the wall.

I'm sure Bill from NYC would absolutely love it if the Bills used their first round pick to take a CB. On a more serious note, I think that's the last thing this team should do. Whether the Bills re-sign Nate, or sign some other free agent, we shouldn't use a first or second round pick on a CB. Doing so would merely continue a long Bills' tradition of drafting a guy in the first round, having him stay here four years or so, letting him leave in free agency, and using a first round pick once again on his replacement. Antoine Winfield, Thomas Smith, the list goes on. The problem the Bills face in signing any free agent--whether it be Clements or a FA from another team--is that players with options don't want to come here. The team is lousy, a lot of people don't like the weather, the city has a reputation for being less exciting than, say, Miami. Add to that the fact that many players scheduled to become free agents will get extensions from their current teams, and it's tough. So the Bills should add quality free agents wherever possible, realizing that we shouldn't expect too much. But if a position requires continuity, such as at QB or the offensive line, the Bills should restrict themselves to young free agents. The last thing this team needs is another Chris Villarrial.

When they showed the replay of the pass to Evans, it was clear the defender managed to stick his arm in there to knock the ball out. Yes, Evans could have done better, and it also would have helped had the throw been made a little bit sooner. If you wait too long, Evans has to slow down a little to avoid running out the back of the end zone, and the defender can catch up. But I don't see that play as a negative reflection on Evans or Losman, so much as an example of good defense by the New England guy. The fumble on the scramble was inexcusable, ref or no ref.

The snap to Reed was a running play that got the Bills a yard or two. If it was McGahee running the ball in the red zone and getting that same yard or two, nobody would complain. If the worst thing that can be said about Fairchild is that one of his calls resulted in a two yard running play in the red zone, that's not too bad. It's not like he turned the ball over by having Travis Henry drop back for a pass. I don't see a huge need to blame Fairchild for a running play in the red zone, even if Josh Reed was the one running it. I tend to focus more on that short shovel pass that turned into a long gain. This isn't the first time we've seen plays that were like this. Without an offensive line, you have to look for ways to help the WR do things after the catch, and I see Fairchild doing exactly that.

He was talking about trading the Bills' first round pick of 2008 for Shaub, which would still leave the entire draft of 2007 to be used on the OL or elsewhere. I agree the line is a mess, and that it needs to be a huge priority in the off-season. At the same time, quarterbacks take a while to develop. If Losman isn't the answer, I'd like to get an early start on developing the guy who will be.

Well, I've seen much worse "got drunk and posted something" examples than that!

Do you blame the coaching staff for the umpire-fumble? Or for Losman's interception? Or his tendency to stare down receivers? Or the fact he overthrew a WR who was wide open deep down the field? Losman's already on his second offensive coaching staff. How many offensive coaching staffs do you think the Bills should fire before concluding coaching may not be the problem?

Each of the four examples I gave were based on points you'd raised earlier. You yourself questioned whether one or many genes affect intelligence, or whether the gene for high intelligence was dominant or recessive. I don't necessarily feel the four examples I provided are the most likely ways in which genetics affect intelligence. They do, however, demonstrate that raising questions about the number or dominance of genes that affect intelligence isn't an effective way to shoot down a eugenics program. If you don't like the examples, raise different objections. As I think about your manx example, it seems to me the gene for taillessness is dominant. If two manx parents have recessive genes that state, "make a tail," you could get a kitten with a tail. However, if your goal was to maximize a kitten's chance of being tailless, you'd be best off selecting tailless parents. So the manx example hardly undermines the scientific basis for the eugenics program I suggest. I don't see where your last paragraph came from. You say breeding isn't as clear-cut as I believe. Yet with the exception of the manx example, you've done little to try to illuminate any of its nuances. Moreover, you claim I've been "demonstrated" to be incorrect. If memory serves, your Monte Carlo simulation was intended to be exactly such a demonstration. You were so confident its results would make me look foolish you were even willing to bet $20 on its outcome. I remember thinking its methodology was flawed, in that you had I.Q. going from parents to oldest child, and from there to the rest of the children. But even with that flaw, I still felt the benefit of a eugenics program would shine through. Your recent silence about your Monte Carlo simulation would seem to confirm this view.

In my example, I was trying to communicate the idea that there might be 100 genes that affect someone's intelligence level. Under this hypothetical example, vos Savant would have 100 genes for high intelligence; whereas someone like George W. Bush would have 40 genes for high intelligence, and 60 for low intelligence. Leon Lett would have 5 genes for high intelligence, and 95 for low. Selective breeding programs have been effective for thousands of years; long before people heard the word "genetics." People started with the wolf, and converted it into the dog. But not just one form of dog--dogs were bred for fighting, sheep herding, water rescue, and a host of other roles. Dog breeders have determined dogs' size, their general personality types (think of the pit bull!), even their intelligence levels. I'm unaware of a single case where a selective animal breeding program has failed. Suppose a breeder decided he wanted trait X. The plants or animals with the highest amount of trait X would be allowed to breed; the rest wouldn't. Over the course of several generations, the plants or animals in question will come to have higher levels of trait X. You seem to think that there are cases where you could breed for trait X without getting any results. For example, you'd breed the biggest dog of a litter with the biggest dog of some other litter; you'd keep doing this for several generations, but you wouldn't get bigger dogs. I'm a little confused as to why you think this is a possiblity, or where you got the idea that something along these lines had ever been observed.

I see two possible reasons for why Losman's performance has gotten worse lately. On the one hand, you could argue that if you're learning something new, there will be ups and downs, good days and bad days. Maybe it's that. But maybe the problem is that defensive coordinators are becoming more familiar with the Buffalo version of the Fairchild offense, and are therefore better able to expose Losman's flaws. If Losman continues to struggle over the next few weeks, it's will be a strong signal the Bills should be looking for a QB this coming offseason. Unless, of course, they like what they see in Nall.

Let's think this through here, with four different scenarios: 1. There is one gene pair for high intelligence, and it's a dominant gene. 2. There is one gene pair for high intelligence, and it's recessive. 3. There are 100 genes for high intelligence, and they're dominant. 4. There are 100 genes for high intelligence, and they're recessive. Under scenario 1, a high intelligence phenotype implies a high intelligence dominant gene, without telling us anything at all about the person's recessive gene. A child of such a parent would have a 50% chance of getting that high I.Q. gene, and a 50% chance of getting the recessive gene. On average, the recessive gene will be for an intelligence level in line with that of the general population. In this scenario, the only people capable of producing smart children are smart parents, so a eugenics program would make sense. Under scenario 2, intelligence is a recessive trait. To be smart, you'd have to have inherited the gene for high intelligence from both your parents. Under this scenario, smart parents are only capable of producing smart children, while people of normal intelligence will sometimes produce smart children also. Scenario 2 would seem to be inconsistent with the observed phenomenon of regression toward the mean. But if scenario 2 really was true, a eugenics program would of course make sense. Under scenario 3, a person who got all 100 genes for high intelligence (such as vos Savant) would be smarter than someone who merely got 80 or so of such genes. Under this scenario, two smart parents would produce children whose intelligences were halfway between the average of the parents, and the average for the population group to which the parents belonged. A eugenics program would of course make sense, because the children of intelligent parents would, on average, be smarter than the children of those less bright. Under scenario 4, the children of two geniuses would necessarily be geniuses themselves. This is because neither parent would have any mediocre-IQ genes to pass along to the kids. This scenario is inconsistent with regression toward the mean. But in the unlikely event it was true, a eugenics program would make sense. To make a long post short, government policies which encouraged smart people to have more kids would, in fact, make the population smarter. The previous statement isn't contingent on whether high intelligence is a dominant or recessive trait, or whether one gene or 100 genes affect intelligence. The relative degree of success of a eugenics program might be affected by these things. But they cannot affect the absolute certainty that a successful eugenics program will lead to a higher average genetic capacity for intelligence.

In that case, you should be giving yourself credit for 30 seconds, instead of for 15.

You make good points. If a woman can stay home to raise kids, it really makes a big difference. But as you point out, it's a big hit to your family's income. You could probably encourage people at the margin to have kids. Maybe an extra $200 a month would make the difference between not affording an extra kid, and just barely affording one. But for people who were truly at the top of the intellectual pecking order, I'd favor a far more massive subsidy. Staying home and raising kids should be a viable career choice for a woman of truly exceptional intelligence, because the U.S. will benefit from the children of such women a lot more than it would have benefitted from keeping the cash.

Dude, you called my sex life "masterbatory"--hardly an unheard-of witticism on a football discussion board. You made a comment about Holcomb taking a while to go downfield. We're not exactly talking about Shakespeare here. That website has really gone to your head.

Neither do I.

I see that you strongly disagree with me, yet are making the effort to be civil. I respect that. To move onto your example, an aptitude test would have understated the intellectual abilities of the Italian immigrants you describe, both because of their lack of schooling and due to language difficulties. The fact they weren't in school very much probably was due to a lack of opportunity, rather than to anything driven by genetics. I myself know of cases where children of immigrants dug themselves out of poverty. Typically they did so through determination, as well as through having the genetic potential to achieve intellectually challenging tasks. I respect such people both for their drive and for their intelligence. A eugenics program would encourage smart people to have more children than less intelligent people do. But it wouldn't address the issue of work ethic/desire, either in a positive or a negative way. I'd like to address it, but I don't see how an institution can measure desire. In this case I'm settling for half a loaf by having programs increase intelligence, while neither raising nor lowering the average level of desire. America's present childbearing incentives encourage lazy people to have more children than more ambitious people do. Suppose there are two women with the same below-average I.Q. One is lazy, the other ambitious. Which do you think will be more likely to go on welfare? Considering the government encourages welfare recipients to have more kids, this represents a problem. If work ethic is genetic, it's a problem. If it's environmental it's a problem, because the natural role models for these kids (their parents) are lazy.

My emotions are mixed. On the one hand it was a funny site. But I'm a little, um, puzzled as to why you would go through the trouble of setting up an entire website to celebrate a short, run of the mill post.

It appears this discussion has gotten off track. My main point is that a eugenics program would significantly increase the number of smart people. There are several substantial benefits to such a program. The higher number of smart people would result in more discoveries, more quality literature, and other truly unique accomplishments. The second benefit is that the population would be smarter, and that's an end in itself. But even Ramius agrees that a smart person will tend to perform a complicated job better than a less intelligent person would, so there's another substantial benefit. I believe smart people tend to be more economically successful than less gifted people, but this isn't a major pillar of the case for eugenics. The question then arises: will a eugenics program in fact result in a smarter population? The statement I cited earlier--the one signed by 52 academics--states that heritability estimates for intelligence range from 40 - 80%. Your response was to draw the word "heritability" into question, implying that a correct understanding of the word's meaning would undermine my case. I looked up the word "heritability" in dictionary.com, and the most relevant definition is this: A phenotype is some observable characteristic of an organism, such as eye color, height, etc. A genotype is the underlying genetic code which affects the phenotype. Maybe a baby is born with the genes to grow to 6'2" (genotype), but due to poor nutrition, actually grew to only 5'11". The actual height is what gets measured, and is the phenotype. The group's statement that "heritability estimates range from 0.4 - 0.8" therefore means that between 40% and 80% of the observed variation in intelligence from one person to the next is driven by genetics. In this case, what's true for people is true for their parents. If your parents are, say, two standard deviations above the normal intelligence level, then (according to this group), the expectation is that between 40% - 80% of that extra intelligence has been driven by genetics. By observing the phenotype (measured intelligence) we gain insight into the genotype (genetic disposition toward intelligence).

Two points. Number one, it'd take me at least three hours to complete the task. Number two, I don't really see why we're talking about our sex lives.

You appear to be understating the correlation between intelligence and economic success. The below quote is from an article published in the Scientific American: From the following: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/repri...gencefactor.pdf Page 4 of that same article addresses the parent/child intelligence correlation issue you've raised: It does tell me a little something about the type of website to which you're drawn!