3 ms·

This would all be true if we were all genetically identical. However psychometrics has proven and now cognitive genomics is confirming that valuable mental cha

by wycs 9y ago

This would all be true if we were all genetically identical. However psychometrics has proven and now cognitive genomics is confirming that valuable mental characteristics have very large genetic components. Intelligence is the capacity to achieve your goals. Intelligence is highly heritable. A goal of most people is to become wealthy. So people who acquire wealth tend to be much more intelligent than average, as wealth is graded on a curve. Thus though there is regression to the mean, their children will be more intelligent than average, and so worth more as employees and more likely to succeed even if they were put up for adoption. This has unfortunate class implications, but putting cotten in our ears is not going to help. We must separate the normative from the descriptive. This is horrible and unfair. But natural selection is heartless algorithm literally running on death and suffering. We should not expect it to distribute capacities in a manner that is aligned with the prescriptions of our flimsy ideologies. Wealth distribution would not fix this. But let us seize the high-IQ alleles and distribute them to the proletariat! Such thoughts are verboten now, even as our tools for such interventions get ever sharper and assortative mating magnifies these differences to a point where it is getting difficult to ignore.

logicchains 9y ago
This idea was explored over a century ago in H. G. Wells' classic "The Time Machine" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine), in which over time humanity split into two distinct species by the process you describe.
amateurpolymath 9y ago
> Intelligence is the capacity to achieve your goals. Intelligence is highly heritable. A goal of most people is to become wealthy. So people who acquire wealth tend to be much more intelligent than average, as wealth is graded on a curve That is an impressive syllogism you've got there.
capisce 9y ago
> Wealth distribution would not fix this. But a certain amount of wealth distribution could improve the life quality of those born with less potential.
- RyanZAG 9y ago
  > improve the life quality of those born with less potential While a noble goal, I don't believe this is a goal shared by the majority of the population. I think if you ran a poll between "improve the life quality of those born with less potential" and "improve the progress of humanity", the results would favor the later. Is it better to bring fresh cold water to all, or hot and cold water to some? If it cost $100 to each person for either, I believe that those who possessed $100 would pay for hot water for themselves. There's an argument for "do both", but that's not always realistic. Those without can force the issue with democracy, but if they force the issue too far, bad things are known to happen from history. I'd be wary of forcing it too far, but your opinion is your own.
  - capisce 9y ago
    > While a noble goal, I don't believe this is a goal shared by the majority of the population. Then why do most countries have welfare for the poor? > I think if you ran a poll between "improve the life quality of those born with less potential" and "improve the progress of humanity", the results would favor the later. What's the point of improving the progress of humanity if not to actually make life better for the majority of humans? In a few decades the majority of the population might find _themselves_ poor due to not being born with enough potential to compete with automation and robots. Should we keep engineering the economy such as to only improve life quality for the most fortunate?
    - RyanZAG 9y ago
      > Then why do most countries have welfare for the poor? Because of democracy. The rest of your points are good and I agree with them. Just pointing out that "improve the life quality of those born with less potential" is probably not a goal most people strive for. I do hope I am wrong, but I don't believe I am.
jondubois 9y ago
I'm a strong believer of the influence of genes on human behavior but I don't think that it has much to do with the ability to make money. The ability to make money has more to do with dumb luck and confidence than any kind of value-creating intelligence. The ability to keep money once you already have it might have a stronger genetic component however but it has nothing to do with value-creation.
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  There's a fairly strong correlation between IQ and income. Yes, IQ is not the exact same thing as intelligence, but it's the best measure we have available. Also you're conflating "value-creation" with "make money" in your comment which muddles the issue. Making more money is often associated with greater value creation, but it's not strictly necessary.
  - dd36 9y ago
    Yes, a lot of money can be made from defrauding or destroying.

by wycs 9y ago

logicchains 9y ago

This idea was explored over a century ago in H. G. Wells' classic "The Time Machine" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine), in which over time humanity split into two distinct species by the process you describe.

amateurpolymath 9y ago

> Intelligence is the capacity to achieve your goals. Intelligence is highly heritable. A goal of most people is to become wealthy. So people who acquire wealth tend to be much more intelligent than average, as wealth is graded on a curve That is an impressive syllogism you've got there.

capisce 9y ago

> Wealth distribution would not fix this. But a certain amount of wealth distribution could improve the life quality of those born with less potential.

RyanZAG 9y ago
> improve the life quality of those born with less potential While a noble goal, I don't believe this is a goal shared by the majority of the population. I think if you ran a poll between "improve the life quality of those born with less potential" and "improve the progress of humanity", the results would favor the later. Is it better to bring fresh cold water to all, or hot and cold water to some? If it cost $100 to each person for either, I believe that those who possessed $100 would pay for hot water for themselves. There's an argument for "do both", but that's not always realistic. Those without can force the issue with democracy, but if they force the issue too far, bad things are known to happen from history. I'd be wary of forcing it too far, but your opinion is your own.
- capisce 9y ago
  > While a noble goal, I don't believe this is a goal shared by the majority of the population. Then why do most countries have welfare for the poor? > I think if you ran a poll between "improve the life quality of those born with less potential" and "improve the progress of humanity", the results would favor the later. What's the point of improving the progress of humanity if not to actually make life better for the majority of humans? In a few decades the majority of the population might find _themselves_ poor due to not being born with enough potential to compete with automation and robots. Should we keep engineering the economy such as to only improve life quality for the most fortunate?
  - RyanZAG 9y ago
    > Then why do most countries have welfare for the poor? Because of democracy. The rest of your points are good and I agree with them. Just pointing out that "improve the life quality of those born with less potential" is probably not a goal most people strive for. I do hope I am wrong, but I don't believe I am.

jondubois 9y ago

I'm a strong believer of the influence of genes on human behavior but I don't think that it has much to do with the ability to make money. The ability to make money has more to do with dumb luck and confidence than any kind of value-creating intelligence. The ability to keep money once you already have it might have a stronger genetic component however but it has nothing to do with value-creation.

TulliusCicero 9y ago
There's a fairly strong correlation between IQ and income. Yes, IQ is not the exact same thing as intelligence, but it's the best measure we have available. Also you're conflating "value-creation" with "make money" in your comment which muddles the issue. Making more money is often associated with greater value creation, but it's not strictly necessary.
- dd36 9y ago
  Yes, a lot of money can be made from defrauding or destroying.