3 ms·

You could make castes based on measured behavior, not genetic predisposition which is obviously unreliable. We do this in school by separating kids into differ

You could make castes based on measured behavior, not genetic predisposition which is obviously unreliable. We do this in school by separating kids into different classes according to our guess of their ability. Not very reliable, but it can be better overall than treating everyone equally. We also do genetic "castes" with sports separating males and females. Again, some people end up on the wrong side of the fence but overall it seems to help more than it harms. I kind of think we should do this in wider society too. As it is, naturally low intelligence or low impulse control people are just thrown in the deep end and expected to compete with people who are biologically superior. They can't win, so all kinds of negative social effects compound, like crime, poor health, poor mental health, and even lower economic success.

jacobolus 7y ago
> We do this in school by separating kids into different classes according to our guess of their ability. Not very reliable, but it can be better overall than treating everyone equally. Measured outcomes are generally worse overall. This system is popular with wealthy/high-status parents though. The way to get better outcomes (in school and society) is to make sure that everyone has enough individual attention and support, not to sort and label everyone. People who are impulsive or who integrate knowledge in a less regular way or ... are not “biologically inferior”; those differences are a complex trade-off, and our society needs a wide variety of personalities and thinking styles to function.
zaphod4prez 7y ago
Respectfully, this sounds like a dystopia to me. In fact this exact structure has been described in multiple dystopian novels and movies [1]. Dividing people into castes that affect their options in life is a really really bad and dangerous idea for a litany of reasons. Regardless of whether it's based on an assessment or your bloodline, ...or anything. Doesn't this sentence that you wrote ring any alarm bells for you? "Not very reliable, but it can be better overall than treating everyone equally." [1] Here are a few I can think of off the top of my head: * 3%, the tv show * Brave New World (Huxley's book) * Player Piano (Vonnegut's book)

jacobolus 7y ago

> We do this in school by separating kids into different classes according to our guess of their ability. Not very reliable, but it can be better overall than treating everyone equally. Measured outcomes are generally worse overall. This system is popular with wealthy/high-status parents though. The way to get better outcomes (in school and society) is to make sure that everyone has enough individual attention and support, not to sort and label everyone. People who are impulsive or who integrate knowledge in a less regular way or ... are not “biologically inferior”; those differences are a complex trade-off, and our society needs a wide variety of personalities and thinking styles to function.

zaphod4prez 7y ago

Respectfully, this sounds like a dystopia to me. In fact this exact structure has been described in multiple dystopian novels and movies [1]. Dividing people into castes that affect their options in life is a really really bad and dangerous idea for a litany of reasons. Regardless of whether it's based on an assessment or your bloodline, ...or anything. Doesn't this sentence that you wrote ring any alarm bells for you? "Not very reliable, but it can be better overall than treating everyone equally." [1] Here are a few I can think of off the top of my head: * 3%, the tv show * Brave New World (Huxley's book) * Player Piano (Vonnegut's book)