5 ms·

I have always wondered what exactly is going on in society: People in the US, more so than other countries, have a plausible chance of going to college, even i

by gxs 10y ago

I have always wondered what exactly is going on in society: People in the US, more so than other countries, have a plausible chance of going to college, even if it takes going in to massive debt. Then, they will go on to find a mate who is likely also college educated, and in a similar income bracket. Over time, doesn't this mean that we're breeding (for lack of a better term) a class of people who are a) capable of being educated and b) seek out education? Doesn't this only widen the achievement gap? Not proposing a solution, but I suspect if we were to take this stuff seriously, we could make serious inroads to addressing inequality. On the other hand, as a country we rightfully (IMO) believe everyone is equal and work hard to provide opportunity for everyone. What's the right move here?

olalonde 10y ago
At the speed science and technology are progressing, Darwinian evolution is more or less irrelevant as far as humans are concerned. We'll have IQ enhancing drugs, invented hard AI to take care of us or cured age death long before random DNA mutations or "breeding" adds or subtracts a few IQ points to our descendants. There are a lot of things we should worry about but genetics of future humans isn't one of them in my opinion.
danieltillett 10y ago
Equal opportunity, not equal outcome or talent.
- mrmffh 10y ago
  I agree, although I think 'Equality of process' is more accurate than 'opportunity'.
caseysoftware 10y ago
The Bell Curve (1994) talked about the intellectual stratification that is happening in society. The author and resulting research was called "racist" and has been shouted down time and time again but much of what you say is discussed in the book. He shows correlation between intelligence and [income, parent's socioeconomic status (SES), job security/unemployment, educational attainment, and tons of other things]. The data is sporadic pre-WW2 but complete and well-validated afterwards. He avoids drawing conclusions or prescribing solutions. All of it is interesting and some is compelling, but the book is generally forbidden to be discussed in "polite" company. The interesting thing about the book.. to reduce the "racist" attacks, the author only looked at white people throughout the bulk of the book.
- gxs 10y ago
  Wow, fascinating, thanks for the book reference. Reading the wikipedia article made me uncomfortable - I doubt a book like that would ever be written today.
- peteretep 10y ago
  > the book is generally forbidden to be discussed in > "polite" company The problem with studies like this - and also ones that for example attempt to show race-linked differences in "positive factors" - is that they're pretty useless for anything other than the uneducated using as a blunt discrimination tool. Let's say you live in a society where there are blue and green people. A study shows a genetic basis for a difference - on average across the whole population - where blue people are 10% less intelligent and 10% more violent. What's next? Are you justified in preferring to hire green people? No. Are you justified in having greens-only policies? Of course not, that's not how averages work. Is there any basis for any kind of segregation? Any basis for any color-based policies? No. But you can be sure that there will be green people trying to use these studies to show themselves as superior, as a basis for discrimination, for popularist politics, and all the other associated bullshit. It's precisely because there's almost no practical use for studies like these, but they are absolutely pounced upon by racists and opportunists, that they're 'generally forbidden to be discussed in "polite" company'.
  - mrmffh 10y ago
    Ignoring reality is the worst possible option. Regarding your assertion, judging an individual by their collective group average is wrong. I'm a big proponent of research in this area - because I want to change it. For e.g. Black Americans have an IQ, on average, 15 points lower than white Americans. I want more research on this area, so it can be improved. Calling people racists (without evidence) shuts down any meaningful conversation, and hurts those who need the most help.
    - peteretep 10y ago
      > I want more research on this area, so it can be > improved Somehow it sounds more obviously ridiculous when you rephrase it and start looking for "solutions" to improving the intelligence of all white people. Small differences between very large, heterogenous populations gives you virtually no predictive power about individuals or how to help them, but do facilitate subtle and overt racism, however well-meaning it might be.
daxorid 10y ago
Yes, it is a well studied phenomenon called assortative mating.
j15t 10y ago
I think you'll find that birthrates are negatively correlated with education level, so globally the reverse is happening (with regards to your breeding theory). But more generally, the reason why evolution works is because organisms are not equal (mutation and crossover are random). I don't expect that this will stop any time soon.
- specialist 10y ago
  IIRC, birthrate (in the developing world?) is correlated with female empowerment. Small stuff like when females have educational and economic opportunities, are not utterly dependent on their males counterparts, have basic humans, etc.

by gxs 10y ago

olalonde 10y ago

At the speed science and technology are progressing, Darwinian evolution is more or less irrelevant as far as humans are concerned. We'll have IQ enhancing drugs, invented hard AI to take care of us or cured age death long before random DNA mutations or "breeding" adds or subtracts a few IQ points to our descendants. There are a lot of things we should worry about but genetics of future humans isn't one of them in my opinion.

danieltillett 10y ago

Equal opportunity, not equal outcome or talent.

mrmffh 10y ago
I agree, although I think 'Equality of process' is more accurate than 'opportunity'.

caseysoftware 10y ago

The Bell Curve (1994) talked about the intellectual stratification that is happening in society. The author and resulting research was called "racist" and has been shouted down time and time again but much of what you say is discussed in the book. He shows correlation between intelligence and [income, parent's socioeconomic status (SES), job security/unemployment, educational attainment, and tons of other things]. The data is sporadic pre-WW2 but complete and well-validated afterwards. He avoids drawing conclusions or prescribing solutions. All of it is interesting and some is compelling, but the book is generally forbidden to be discussed in "polite" company. The interesting thing about the book.. to reduce the "racist" attacks, the author only looked at white people throughout the bulk of the book.

gxs 10y ago
Wow, fascinating, thanks for the book reference. Reading the wikipedia article made me uncomfortable - I doubt a book like that would ever be written today.
peteretep 10y ago
> the book is generally forbidden to be discussed in > "polite" company The problem with studies like this - and also ones that for example attempt to show race-linked differences in "positive factors" - is that they're pretty useless for anything other than the uneducated using as a blunt discrimination tool. Let's say you live in a society where there are blue and green people. A study shows a genetic basis for a difference - on average across the whole population - where blue people are 10% less intelligent and 10% more violent. What's next? Are you justified in preferring to hire green people? No. Are you justified in having greens-only policies? Of course not, that's not how averages work. Is there any basis for any kind of segregation? Any basis for any color-based policies? No. But you can be sure that there will be green people trying to use these studies to show themselves as superior, as a basis for discrimination, for popularist politics, and all the other associated bullshit. It's precisely because there's almost no practical use for studies like these, but they are absolutely pounced upon by racists and opportunists, that they're 'generally forbidden to be discussed in "polite" company'.
- mrmffh 10y ago
  Ignoring reality is the worst possible option. Regarding your assertion, judging an individual by their collective group average is wrong. I'm a big proponent of research in this area - because I want to change it. For e.g. Black Americans have an IQ, on average, 15 points lower than white Americans. I want more research on this area, so it can be improved. Calling people racists (without evidence) shuts down any meaningful conversation, and hurts those who need the most help.
  - peteretep 10y ago
    > I want more research on this area, so it can be > improved Somehow it sounds more obviously ridiculous when you rephrase it and start looking for "solutions" to improving the intelligence of all white people. Small differences between very large, heterogenous populations gives you virtually no predictive power about individuals or how to help them, but do facilitate subtle and overt racism, however well-meaning it might be.

daxorid 10y ago

Yes, it is a well studied phenomenon called assortative mating.

j15t 10y ago

I think you'll find that birthrates are negatively correlated with education level, so globally the reverse is happening (with regards to your breeding theory). But more generally, the reason why evolution works is because organisms are not equal (mutation and crossover are random). I don't expect that this will stop any time soon.

specialist 10y ago
IIRC, birthrate (in the developing world?) is correlated with female empowerment. Small stuff like when females have educational and economic opportunities, are not utterly dependent on their males counterparts, have basic humans, etc.