5 ms·

If successful people are having fewer kids than unsuccessful people then haven't we created a dysgenic system?

CptFribble 7y ago
This view is popular, even if in jest like "haha Idiocracy was right guise!!" but in real life it smacks of eugenics and the Divine Right Of The Rich. Success correlates well with things like wealth, education level of your parents, early-age nutrition, and other things that can be considered "inherited" in a way, but children of poor and "unsuccessful" people can become financially and socially important as well, it just happens at a lower rate. Suggesting that more poor children than wealthy children will impoverish society in more than just a statistical sense implies there's something immeasurably special about the people who become wealthy and famous, as if the mere act of breeding with them will produce superior humans.
- mistermann 7y ago
  Impressive unpacking of a low detail, fairly innocuous comment, into a high detail, somewhat sinister assertion. What mechanism do you use to add specific details where none existed before?
  - Apocryphon 7y ago
    The very use of the word "dysgenic" wrt human populations is a form of virtue signaling that is far from unknown to internet circles such as HN. The comment might have been overzealous about rebutting a perceived narrative, but that statement is a basis for that narrative.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      Fair enough, but back to my question: what mechanism do you use to add specific details where none existed before?
      - Apocryphon 7y ago
        I can't speak for the commenter, but it could be a simple yet rigorous heuristic of seeing a particular buzzword used in certain conversations, reading the context statement that the buzzword is employed under, and matching that statement to a particular ideological narrative that is often prevalent in discussion circles such as HN.
        mistermann 7y ago
        I just realized the original person that made the comment wasn't the one that replied, my bad. But I agree, this is indeed what happened. Another similarly true explanation is, he used his imagination. It's interesting to me how judging people based on heuristics is sometimes fine, even admirable, but other times it is Very Very Bad. It's also funny how these types of ideas seem to offend people, judging by voting anyways. No looking behind the real curtain or something like that I suppose.
        Apocryphon 7y ago
        Doesn’t seem to be much judgment going on in that comment towards people. Maybe judgment towards a preexisting narrative or meme. People need to take things less personally in arguments, and feel less offended when the ideas they’re repeating are challenged.
        mistermann 7y ago
        > Doesn’t seem to be much judgment going on in that comment towards people. Are we perhaps referring to different comments? I was referring to: "This view is popular, even if in jest like "haha Idiocracy was right guise!!" but in real life it smacks of eugenics and the Divine Right Of The Rich."
        Apocryphon 7y ago
        Seems like that comment is judging a narrative or a meme, and not the person who made the comment itself.
- nitwit005 7y ago
  Even assuming that genetics have absolutely no role in success (a bit unlikely I think), culture is a real thing. Plenty of people will admit they had a huge advantage because their family discussed finance at the dinner table when they grew up, or growing up the child of a business owner. It's hard to imagine there being no negative side effects to the successful portion of the population shrinking at a faster rate.
- lmm 7y ago
  > Suggesting that more poor children than wealthy children will impoverish society in more than just a statistical sense implies there's something immeasurably special about the people who become wealthy and famous, as if the mere act of breeding with them will produce superior humans. Every trait we've managed to come up with an objective measure for is heritable, to a lesser or greater (but usually greater) extent. "Of course intelligence isn't heritable" - but somehow score on every test we can think of for it is. Same for creativity. Same for personality traits. Children largely resemble their genetic parents; we don't have to like it but it's still reality. If the people who contribute the most to society, who help out their fellow humans the most (and I'm not saying that's the rich - but it is largely, as grandparent said, the successful), have fewer children than those who don't, we should be worried.
GoblinSlayer 7y ago
You can't increase success by breeding successful people, because success is created from loss, eventually they add up to zero.
- bencollier49 7y ago
  You're arguing that value creation is a zero-sum game?
whytaka 7y ago
Not if we improve the opportunities of unsuccessful people.

This view is popular, even if in jest like "haha Idiocracy was right guise!!" but in real life it smacks of eugenics and the Divine Right Of The Rich. Success correlates well with things like wealth, education level of your parents, early-age nutrition, and other things that can be considered "inherited" in a way, but children of poor and "unsuccessful" people can become financially and socially important as well, it just happens at a lower rate. Suggesting that more poor children than wealthy children will impoverish society in more than just a statistical sense implies there's something immeasurably special about the people who become wealthy and famous, as if the mere act of breeding with them will produce superior humans.

mistermann 7y ago
Impressive unpacking of a low detail, fairly innocuous comment, into a high detail, somewhat sinister assertion. What mechanism do you use to add specific details where none existed before?
- Apocryphon 7y ago
  The very use of the word "dysgenic" wrt human populations is a form of virtue signaling that is far from unknown to internet circles such as HN. The comment might have been overzealous about rebutting a perceived narrative, but that statement is a basis for that narrative.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    Fair enough, but back to my question: what mechanism do you use to add specific details where none existed before?
    - Apocryphon 7y ago
      I can't speak for the commenter, but it could be a simple yet rigorous heuristic of seeing a particular buzzword used in certain conversations, reading the context statement that the buzzword is employed under, and matching that statement to a particular ideological narrative that is often prevalent in discussion circles such as HN.
      - mistermann 7y ago
        I just realized the original person that made the comment wasn't the one that replied, my bad. But I agree, this is indeed what happened. Another similarly true explanation is, he used his imagination. It's interesting to me how judging people based on heuristics is sometimes fine, even admirable, but other times it is Very Very Bad. It's also funny how these types of ideas seem to offend people, judging by voting anyways. No looking behind the real curtain or something like that I suppose.
        Apocryphon 7y ago
        Doesn’t seem to be much judgment going on in that comment towards people. Maybe judgment towards a preexisting narrative or meme. People need to take things less personally in arguments, and feel less offended when the ideas they’re repeating are challenged.
        mistermann 7y ago
        > Doesn’t seem to be much judgment going on in that comment towards people. Are we perhaps referring to different comments? I was referring to: "This view is popular, even if in jest like "haha Idiocracy was right guise!!" but in real life it smacks of eugenics and the Divine Right Of The Rich."
        Apocryphon 7y ago
        Seems like that comment is judging a narrative or a meme, and not the person who made the comment itself.
nitwit005 7y ago
Even assuming that genetics have absolutely no role in success (a bit unlikely I think), culture is a real thing. Plenty of people will admit they had a huge advantage because their family discussed finance at the dinner table when they grew up, or growing up the child of a business owner. It's hard to imagine there being no negative side effects to the successful portion of the population shrinking at a faster rate.
lmm 7y ago
> Suggesting that more poor children than wealthy children will impoverish society in more than just a statistical sense implies there's something immeasurably special about the people who become wealthy and famous, as if the mere act of breeding with them will produce superior humans. Every trait we've managed to come up with an objective measure for is heritable, to a lesser or greater (but usually greater) extent. "Of course intelligence isn't heritable" - but somehow score on every test we can think of for it is. Same for creativity. Same for personality traits. Children largely resemble their genetic parents; we don't have to like it but it's still reality. If the people who contribute the most to society, who help out their fellow humans the most (and I'm not saying that's the rich - but it is largely, as grandparent said, the successful), have fewer children than those who don't, we should be worried.

GoblinSlayer 7y ago

You can't increase success by breeding successful people, because success is created from loss, eventually they add up to zero.

bencollier49 7y ago
You're arguing that value creation is a zero-sum game?

whytaka 7y ago

Not if we improve the opportunities of unsuccessful people.