According to new research, children inherit their intelligence from their mother not their father. Genes for cleverness are carried on the X chromosome and may be deactivated if they come from the father. A mother’s genetics determines how clever her children are, and the father makes no difference.

A category of genes known as “conditioned genes” are thought to work only if they come from the mother in some cases and the father in other cases. Intelligence is believed to be among the conditioned genes that have to come from the mother. Laboratory studies using genetically modified mice found that those with an extra dose of maternal genes developed bigger heads and brains, but had little bodies. Those with an extra dose of paternal genes had small brains and larger bodies.

Researchers identified cells that contained only maternal or paternal genes in six different parts of the mouse brains which controlled different cognitive functions, from eating habits to memory. Cells with paternal genes accumulated in parts of the limbic system, which is involved in functions such as sex, food and aggression. But researchers did not find any paternal cells in the cerebral cortex, which is where the most advanced cognitive functions take place, such as reasoning, thought, language and planning. (The Independent)

If this is true and is confirmed by further research into actual people (rather than mice), then the lesson to be taken away is clear: men should procreate only with more-intelligent-than-usual women. This is a challenge because presumably intelligence is distributed in the female gender in something approaching a bell curve. The number of highly intelligent women is, of course, limited, and they may not be good-looking or have other attractive traits either. An Epicurean approach to this dilemma is to seek a loving, caring partner with whom you can have a mutually rewarding relationship – and, with a sigh – put up with the stupid children.

Epicurus believed that if there were gods they took no interest in human beings, but caused only aggravation to one another up there on Mount Olympus. People had been killed for not being superstitious, so it was wise to allude to the gods existing, even if you knew it was a charade.

Personally, I think we should be tolerant and applaud those whose acceptance of organised religion gives them peace of mind, and teaches good moral behaviour. To each according to his need. It is when the preachers talk party politics, promise financial success on earth, advocate violence or assaults on human rights in the name of god, or who prey upon the insecurities of their flocks to profit financially, these people should be encouraged to get proper day jobs.
.

Yet another conservative think tank has been established in Washington DC, called the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP, as they call themselves). They intend to concentrate their attention on people with below-median incomes or net worth, looking at conservative market principles and harnessing or bending them to help Americans struggling to survive in the transition from manufacturing to an information economy. “It’s about helping people”, Lanhee Chen, Romney’s former policy advisor, is quoted as saying. “Conservatism needs to be about listening more and lecturing less”. Gasp!

Wonderful what the imminent death of your political party can do to the imagination! For decades these people have ignored their middle class (working class to the British) supporters, bestowing all the attention and goodies on the very rich who, in return, finance them. America is, as a result, disgracefully unequal, and power is concentrated in a tiny minority of coddled wealthy. Suddenly, conservative intellectuals, faced with a huge revolt on the part of the proles, are having to actually think about the voters. Epicurus would be gracious about this development. He would probably say (in Greek) “Better late than never, although I think conservative principles are unlikely to offer an answer. But top marks for trying.”

Non-tenure track teaching staff – commonly referred to as adjuncts – now make up approximately 70% (yes, you read it correctly) of all teaching staff in American higher education. This means that roughly three out of every four courses an American student takes are taught by someone without job security who is working on minimal pay.

Years ago tenure was attacked for a number of reasons: it was accused of encouraging laziness and indifference to the students; it was unfair (why should one class of employee be exempted from being sacked for incompetence); it meant that older teachers could stay on way beyond their sell-by date. Above all, it was expensive and universities couldn’t rid themselves of ga-ga professors.

So tenure was cut back (or is disappearing) and we can now see clearly how students are being short-changed as a result. The administrators (or, as they are known,”nobodies”) have acquired unacceptable power and income. In some cases speech has been curtailed because, if an adjunct professor complains, he or she may never be asked to teach again. The only people who have gained are the heads of the colleges and the penpushers .

The larger picture is one of exploitation and control. One fifth of adjuncts have no health insurance. Half of all adjuncts are seeking full-time employment and are unable to obtain it. They are at the mercy of students who can get them fired if they are tough on the grading of lazy youngsters. Many have to take second jobs, cannot query their contracts, and can have their classes canceled without notice. The average adjunct lecturer receives only $2700 per course taught. While that amount is sometimes portrayed as easy money, in addition to class time lecturers have to prepare course content, create exams and assignments, grade, advise students, and, of course, travel from campus to campus. When academics are employed on a casual basis, such activity is not compensated, meaning that the true rate of pay is often around the minimum wage. Meanwhile, people have started to believe that if you are an adjunct you are an academic failure. And yet the whole business plan of universities is based on cheap adjunct labour. Why bother to go to college, some are asking?

The fact is that colleges and universities are being run as ordinary businesses, ever expanding to take more students and rake in more revenue, with little benefit to students. Amy Gutmann, president of the University of Pennsylvania, for instance, takes home over $3 million a year – about 140 times what an adjunct, teaching eight courses, would earn. The average pay for public college presidents was $428 000 in 2014. Some college sports coaches are paid even better: the 10 most highly paid college coaches in 2015 each earned more than Gutmann, with some bringing home more than $7 million.

Academia as a whole is supposed to work as a force for scientific inquiry, challenging conventional wisdom and independently assessing the truth of various claims and studies. The Enlightenment idea was that universites were there to search for truth, and pass on to new generations the knowledge and wisdom that comes from free thought and debate over centuries. A friend who is involved in this academic world calls higher ecucation a “bubble about to burst”. Let it burst, but return to the old meaning of a “place of learning”.

“The secret of a good blog posting is to have a good beginning and a good ending; and to have the two as close together as possible”. (Taking off on George Burns)

I’m sure you have noticed the incredible prolixity of the commentariat. My blog task is to take information on interesting topics, to sum it up as succinctly and grammatically as possible, then provide a comment, where appropriate from an Epicurean point of view. When I was at school this activity seemed to be what English Language lessons and exams were all about. Back then it bored me hugely, and I longed for, say, a lesson in Higher Mathematics or something simpler like that, with a correct answer at the end of it.

What a shame magazine and newspaper writers never learned the art of the brevity. Some articles go on, and on…and on. Yes, I know. The authors are paid by the word, or, more likely, the half mile. I am sorry to say that American writers are particularly bad about this (to mention the New Yorker is sufficient). Surely they can empathize with us, desperate as we all are for precious time. Cannot they understand that we are not all sitting by the fireside, eating chocolates, with nothing else to do? Would it not be a courtesy for them to say what they have to say shortly and memorably, instead of lengthily and repetitively? Enough already.