From: gerryqq@gmail.com   
      
   In article <782e1458-f73f-4b9b-99b6-825d2330be01@googlegroups.com>,   
   mdhangton@gmail.com says...   
      
   > I do not believe that Nobel Prize mojo is an inheritable trait,   
   > and I would not equate it in any direct way to supreme intelligence.   
      
   But it would be a likely indication of high intelligence, right?   
      
      
   > > Putting it in terms of Nobels is a bit of a publicity trick and sharply   
   > > reduces the number of suitable donors, but what's wrong with the   
   > > underlying idea?   
   > >   
   > As I have been led to understand Robert Shockley's eugenics idea, he   
   > believed that intelligence was concentrated in the masculine principle   
   > of Caucasians.   
      
   It's unlikely that most heritable genes for intelligence are mostly on the   
    Y-chromosome, I would say - and if human sexual dimorphism happens to   
   be such that men are more intelligent on average, it is probably a side   
   effect of genetic switches that exist on all working Y-chromosomes.   
      
   As for racial differences in average intelligence, the debate   
   continues...   
      
   A Nobel Sperm Bank is at least a gentler approach than that of Genghis   
   Khan.   
      
   - Gerry Quinn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)