4 ms·

An alternate theory of how this effect is occurring. Imagine there are two classes of human - high quality and low quality, and this quality is hereditary (lik

An alternate theory of how this effect is occurring. Imagine there are two classes of human - high quality and low quality, and this quality is hereditary (likely genetic). Low quality humans have a lot of unplanned births and their children are also not very good at school. The bottom 20% of humans will always consist of low quality humans, plus a chunk of the remainder high quality humans (assuming low quality humans make up < 20%). Previously low quality humans had a lot of children - say 15% of children were low quality children. Now if low quality humans have performance 1, and high quality humans have performance 2, then the performance of the bottom 20% would be (15% x 1 + 5% x 2) / 20% = 1.25. Now suppose condoms reduce the number of children had by low quality humans. Then the number of low quality children is reduced to 10% - so the performance of the bottom 20% of people would be (10% x 1 + 10% x 2) / 20% = 1.5. That's a 20% improvement even though no group has improved their quality at all. This effect is rather more plausible, given what we know about intelligence/adult outcomes being hereditary, and given what we know about the uselessness of "enrichment activities" (e.g. google how ineffective Head Start or early childhood education is). Such an effect would also have a significant eugenic [1] effect, i.e. massively positive long term effects as well. [1] The word "eugenic" is overloaded, and means both the opposite of dysgenic and also human intervention into genetics to improve them.

jsmith0295 10y ago
Isnt this based on proportionality though? If anything you would expect that bottom 20% to be less likely to use birth control effectively and become a larger share of the population over time, especially as the remaining 80% preferred to have fewer children in general. But that's mostly a guess on my part, I don't have data on hand to validate any of that.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Right, the article postulates that the bottom folks have become more likely to use birth control, so I'm only discussing a relative effect. But yes, considering how our high-IQ elites don't reproduce, it's probably just a reduced dysgenic effect rather than a eugenic one.
ceejayoz 10y ago
Your use of "theory" here is the reason the general public thinks "theory" means "wild unsubstantiated guess" when it comes to stuff like climate change and evolution.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Why do you put "theory" in quotes? I've given a recipe for producing testable predictions, aka a "theory". For example, if I'm right, then an appropriately weighted average of contemporary children's performance (weighted so that low quality children make up the same proportion as before) will show no change. Do you have any intellectual issues with my comment, or are you simply engaging in highbrow dismissal?
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    >I've given a recipe for producing testable predictions, aka a "theory". That's a hypothesis, not a theory.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      I think you might be right. I usually think of theories in this sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_(mathematical_logic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_(mathematical_logic) And similar epistomological variants. But a bit of googling suggests that a distinction is made between a generally accepted and well tested theory, and one that's in the early stages and not well tested (which is termed a hypothesis as you note). In any case, this is just disputing definitions, rather than testable propositions about the underlying reality.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
shanacarp 10y ago
I don't think you understand genetics. There technically is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" gene, only an advantageous, disadvantageous, and neutral variant of a gene. Given that some genes can be read forwards and backwards, and that simple environmental causes, aka just changing an environment, can turn a disadvantageous gene expression into neutral or positive, it's hard to say something is eugenically good in a population unless it is a 1 gene mutation with 99% penetration that always causes death. (Huntingtons would be in this group) Genomics says what you are saying is frankly impossible. If it weren't A) there would be no such thing as incomplete penetrance B) or traits linked to multiple genes C) or ways to manipulate social science statistics with simple experiments, like subsidizing iuds for high school students and seeing what happens. That's a purely environmental factors, and yet your supposed "bottom 20" stops acting like it as thier environment changes in one subtle way Where did you get the Idea that any of what you are saying is scientifically sound?

jsmith0295 10y ago

Isnt this based on proportionality though? If anything you would expect that bottom 20% to be less likely to use birth control effectively and become a larger share of the population over time, especially as the remaining 80% preferred to have fewer children in general. But that's mostly a guess on my part, I don't have data on hand to validate any of that.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Right, the article postulates that the bottom folks have become more likely to use birth control, so I'm only discussing a relative effect. But yes, considering how our high-IQ elites don't reproduce, it's probably just a reduced dysgenic effect rather than a eugenic one.

ceejayoz 10y ago

Your use of "theory" here is the reason the general public thinks "theory" means "wild unsubstantiated guess" when it comes to stuff like climate change and evolution.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Why do you put "theory" in quotes? I've given a recipe for producing testable predictions, aka a "theory". For example, if I'm right, then an appropriately weighted average of contemporary children's performance (weighted so that low quality children make up the same proportion as before) will show no change. Do you have any intellectual issues with my comment, or are you simply engaging in highbrow dismissal?
- aninhumer 10y ago
  >I've given a recipe for producing testable predictions, aka a "theory". That's a hypothesis, not a theory.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I think you might be right. I usually think of theories in this sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_(mathematical_logic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_(mathematical_logic) And similar epistomological variants. But a bit of googling suggests that a distinction is made between a generally accepted and well tested theory, and one that's in the early stages and not well tested (which is termed a hypothesis as you note). In any case, this is just disputing definitions, rather than testable propositions about the underlying reality.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

shanacarp 10y ago

I don't think you understand genetics. There technically is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" gene, only an advantageous, disadvantageous, and neutral variant of a gene. Given that some genes can be read forwards and backwards, and that simple environmental causes, aka just changing an environment, can turn a disadvantageous gene expression into neutral or positive, it's hard to say something is eugenically good in a population unless it is a 1 gene mutation with 99% penetration that always causes death. (Huntingtons would be in this group) Genomics says what you are saying is frankly impossible. If it weren't A) there would be no such thing as incomplete penetrance B) or traits linked to multiple genes C) or ways to manipulate social science statistics with simple experiments, like subsidizing iuds for high school students and seeing what happens. That's a purely environmental factors, and yet your supposed "bottom 20" stops acting like it as thier environment changes in one subtle way Where did you get the Idea that any of what you are saying is scientifically sound?