5 ms·

It strikes me as bizarre that we are so reluctant to apply the same principles of genetics and heredity to humans that we have applied to canines, bovines, equi

by douche 9y ago

It strikes me as bizarre that we are so reluctant to apply the same principles of genetics and heredity to humans that we have applied to canines, bovines, equines, and even vegetables, for centuries.

flukus 9y ago
It's not bizarre, we did exactly that (to varying degrees of scientific quality) until the events of the mid 20th century. As humans we still suck at knowing what to do with the data, we look at headline figures and not distribution graphs. If we found out tomorrow that Icelanders on average had an IQ 10 points lower than most humans we would likely see a lot of discrimination against Icelanders, even the ones on the upper end of the distribution graph that are more intelligent than the average human.
- tptacek 9y ago
  Where by "varying degrees" you presumably mean "uniformly low degrees".
  - flukus 9y ago
    Which was fairly standard for science at the time, unlike the other fields this one get dropped entirely rather then corrected.
babesh 9y ago
We have been applying this especially the British. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-american-rich-kids-bought-their-way-into-the-british-elite-4252/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-american-rich-kids... I am not sure I remember the term but it was something along the lines of keeping the blood fresh. Supposedly the British did this between the gentry who had titles and self made men. A marriage of title and ability so that they two wouldn't fight. Kings did this between themselves as well.
air7 9y ago
I agree and think that is the main point here. Within our social norms, any type of generalized genetic comparison between groups of humans is very much frowned upon. I think that's because it bring back past traumas such as Slavery, the Jewish Holocaust and female oppression. This is so strong that almost any grouping statement is quickly labeled as racism, sexism, profiling etc. Imagine the popular reaction if it's discovered that these "intelligence genes" not only exist but are more prevalent in one of our go-to easily labeled human subgroups such as women, men, whites, blacks, rich, poor, brown-eyed. It'll be proof that that group is objectively genetically more intelligent. What would be the ramifications such a discovery? What should be the ramifications of such a discovery? I think it's quite tricky to research these things objectively without it being explosive. That's why even suggesting that "the genetic influence on intelligence is likely non-zero" is a big thing.
- cLeEOGPw 9y ago
  This time will go in history as "the dark ages of human genetics" because of this reason. Some groups of humans are smarter than other groups of humans, some are more athletic, there are many physical and behavioral differences caused by genes in different easily identifiable groups of people. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it, but because of the toxic political environment, everyone must pretend these differences either don't exist, or they exist because of some magical politically correct reason like socioeconomic status. Even ignoring that the status itself has genetic influence and thus members of one easily identifiable group of people are predisposed to higher/lower status than other. We are doing nothing but fooling ourselves by pretending we are all equal.
jansho 9y ago
I think that most of us find it unpleasant that humans can be "breeded" to become better. Though we fight all the time about our differences, the sheer diversity around you is a wonder to behold. That it happened naturally and you too, though imperfect for sure, are unique and can become better as you grow. We talk about advancing our human race but the reality is, most of us are only capable of seeing things from our personal viewpoint, and just a bit of the future. We care most about ourselves and our experiences, as well as those closest to us like family and friends - we don't actively do things in order to get better as a species. Only 'large entities' like governments and corps afford to see this bigger picture - and I think this is extremely cynical and one-dimensional.
Magnusmaster 9y ago
The problem is that if you breed people like animals, you will end up treating people like animals, especially those that don't have the traits people want. With embryo selection people can decide which individuals deserve life and which don't. Hitler was a monster, but since embryos don't suffer it's OK to kill them (never mind the fact that you are deciding whether another person deserves to live or not), and everyone likes abortion nowadays. CRISPR won't change the fact that a person born with low IQ is doomed, which means that anyone living today will be obsolete as soon as people start to breed people.

by douche 9y ago

flukus 9y ago

It's not bizarre, we did exactly that (to varying degrees of scientific quality) until the events of the mid 20th century. As humans we still suck at knowing what to do with the data, we look at headline figures and not distribution graphs. If we found out tomorrow that Icelanders on average had an IQ 10 points lower than most humans we would likely see a lot of discrimination against Icelanders, even the ones on the upper end of the distribution graph that are more intelligent than the average human.

tptacek 9y ago
Where by "varying degrees" you presumably mean "uniformly low degrees".
- flukus 9y ago
  Which was fairly standard for science at the time, unlike the other fields this one get dropped entirely rather then corrected.

babesh 9y ago

We have been applying this especially the British. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-american-rich-kids-bought-their-way-into-the-british-elite-4252/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-american-rich-kids... I am not sure I remember the term but it was something along the lines of keeping the blood fresh. Supposedly the British did this between the gentry who had titles and self made men. A marriage of title and ability so that they two wouldn't fight. Kings did this between themselves as well.

air7 9y ago

I agree and think that is the main point here. Within our social norms, any type of generalized genetic comparison between groups of humans is very much frowned upon. I think that's because it bring back past traumas such as Slavery, the Jewish Holocaust and female oppression. This is so strong that almost any grouping statement is quickly labeled as racism, sexism, profiling etc. Imagine the popular reaction if it's discovered that these "intelligence genes" not only exist but are more prevalent in one of our go-to easily labeled human subgroups such as women, men, whites, blacks, rich, poor, brown-eyed. It'll be proof that that group is objectively genetically more intelligent. What would be the ramifications such a discovery? What should be the ramifications of such a discovery? I think it's quite tricky to research these things objectively without it being explosive. That's why even suggesting that "the genetic influence on intelligence is likely non-zero" is a big thing.

cLeEOGPw 9y ago
This time will go in history as "the dark ages of human genetics" because of this reason. Some groups of humans are smarter than other groups of humans, some are more athletic, there are many physical and behavioral differences caused by genes in different easily identifiable groups of people. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it, but because of the toxic political environment, everyone must pretend these differences either don't exist, or they exist because of some magical politically correct reason like socioeconomic status. Even ignoring that the status itself has genetic influence and thus members of one easily identifiable group of people are predisposed to higher/lower status than other. We are doing nothing but fooling ourselves by pretending we are all equal.

jansho 9y ago

I think that most of us find it unpleasant that humans can be "breeded" to become better. Though we fight all the time about our differences, the sheer diversity around you is a wonder to behold. That it happened naturally and you too, though imperfect for sure, are unique and can become better as you grow. We talk about advancing our human race but the reality is, most of us are only capable of seeing things from our personal viewpoint, and just a bit of the future. We care most about ourselves and our experiences, as well as those closest to us like family and friends - we don't actively do things in order to get better as a species. Only 'large entities' like governments and corps afford to see this bigger picture - and I think this is extremely cynical and one-dimensional.

Magnusmaster 9y ago

The problem is that if you breed people like animals, you will end up treating people like animals, especially those that don't have the traits people want. With embryo selection people can decide which individuals deserve life and which don't. Hitler was a monster, but since embryos don't suffer it's OK to kill them (never mind the fact that you are deciding whether another person deserves to live or not), and everyone likes abortion nowadays. CRISPR won't change the fact that a person born with low IQ is doomed, which means that anyone living today will be obsolete as soon as people start to breed people.