4 ms·

I don't particularly have a problem accepting that intelligence could be genetic. But then people use that to argue that the people at the top deserve everythi

I don't particularly have a problem accepting that intelligence could be genetic. But then people use that to argue that the people at the top deserve everything they have. The exact same argument was made back when we had slavery. Now its just used to justify wage slavery and gross wealth inequality and policies which punish the poor. (It also is grossly oversimplified and discounts reversion to the mean and that two dumb parents can absolutely have a smart kid -- along with the fact that a smart kid born in poverty is going have a much more difficult time getting their net worth up into tends of millions than someone who is just literally born with that much -- plus neglects the effects of e.g. malnutrition on childhood development)

colordrops 5y ago
The main problem with tying specific skills to genetics is that it's not yet possible. We can't even figure out how to get a car to drive itself reliably, and we build the car from scratch. We are not even slightly close to figuring out how genes correlate to advanced complex behaviors that involve learned elements. There are endless factors and interplay between them that determine an already vague concept such as "intelligence". How could you possibly say "these three genes mean you are capable of calculus"? Perhaps you might find some correlations through statistical analysis but that entire in-between is still a blackbox and you can't draw conclusions at all about what is or isn't possible. It wouldn't serve any valuable purpose. The cognitive dissonance is real - it's an echo chamber in here about how self-driving is a pipe dream, and yet a much more difficult problem of determining ability driven by genes is easily swallowed.
- concordDance 5y ago
  The thing is, you don't need to know in detail how a car works to see that car A is faster than car B or that that self-driving car crashes less than that other one. Similarly, you can tell how much of intelligence is genetic for a given environment (and the "for a given environment" bit is forgotten by so many) by comparing clones (identical twins) to non-clones (non-identical twins). Additionally, sometimes even if you don't understand about how anything happens you can still influence the result. E.g. you don't need to know anything about protein expression and brain development to breed more docile foxes. (Not that I would recommend trying breeding experiments on humans)
Veen 5y ago
> But then people use that to argue that the people at the top deserve everything they have. Doesn't genetic endowment imply the exact opposite. If the "people at the top" got there because of a factor over which they had no influence—what was once called a gift—how can they deserve their place? You might argue that they are the people who should be at the top because of their abilities, but that has nothing to do with whether they deserve it or not.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > If the "people at the top" got there because of a factor over which they had no influence—what was once called a gift—how can they deserve their place? The next step in the line of reasoning is that their genetics have divine provenance. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Wealth_Gospel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Wealth_Gospel Essentially: I'm rich because I'm smart, and I'm smart because God wanted me to be, therefore God wants me to be rich. Conversely God wants poor people to be poor. If He didn't want that, then He would have made them smarter.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  Yeah, that's where I'm trying to go with this argument. Them: You just need to believe that genetics matters! Me: Okay, fine I do. Them: Well, then you must agree with <probably something about meritocracy and billionaires and awarding wealth to the top 1%> Me: Nope, I still want to tax billionaires out of existence and use that to support your "stupid poors" and your ideal of a ruling class and an underclass with unlimited market exploitation created by birthright of genetics is wrong (again, for the sake of argument, it still doesn't really work this way). "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs" and they need more. Economically, Elon Musk should be playing with nightmare-mode level taxation levels, all the "stupid poors" need the difficulty slider backed off for them -- instead we have that nearly reversed. Whatever you call it (leftist/progressive/socialist) isn't founded at all on a rejection of genetics, attacking that gets you nowhere.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I think this just us back to the basic questions society has considered for hundreds of years. How to balance of equality of outcomes vs equal treatment. How to enable individuals to develop their productive ability. What quality of life we want to provide with charity to those with low economic productivity. What tax policies achieve these goals and favors the kind economic growth that raises all boats. In my opinion, I think all of the discussions about economic fairness and what people 'deserve' is just a side freakshow distracting from these real questions.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
imtringued 5y ago
>But then people use that to argue that the people at the top deserve everything they have. It's ironic. Because genetics are so vague and ambiguous unless it is about skin color. People attribute their success to themselves. So they automatically declare their genetics to be superior. The reason why it is so appealing to explain things with genetics is that genetics are permanent. If you are rich you will always be rich and the poor always poor. It then becomes a self fulfilling cycle because everyone falls for it and tries to keep people rich or poor with their genes as the justification. It's just a more scientific version of believing that god gave you your role. If genetics matter then genetics are just another form of luck where people want to read tea leaves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LopI4YeC4I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LopI4YeC4I

colordrops 5y ago

The main problem with tying specific skills to genetics is that it's not yet possible. We can't even figure out how to get a car to drive itself reliably, and we build the car from scratch. We are not even slightly close to figuring out how genes correlate to advanced complex behaviors that involve learned elements. There are endless factors and interplay between them that determine an already vague concept such as "intelligence". How could you possibly say "these three genes mean you are capable of calculus"? Perhaps you might find some correlations through statistical analysis but that entire in-between is still a blackbox and you can't draw conclusions at all about what is or isn't possible. It wouldn't serve any valuable purpose. The cognitive dissonance is real - it's an echo chamber in here about how self-driving is a pipe dream, and yet a much more difficult problem of determining ability driven by genes is easily swallowed.

concordDance 5y ago
The thing is, you don't need to know in detail how a car works to see that car A is faster than car B or that that self-driving car crashes less than that other one. Similarly, you can tell how much of intelligence is genetic for a given environment (and the "for a given environment" bit is forgotten by so many) by comparing clones (identical twins) to non-clones (non-identical twins). Additionally, sometimes even if you don't understand about how anything happens you can still influence the result. E.g. you don't need to know anything about protein expression and brain development to breed more docile foxes. (Not that I would recommend trying breeding experiments on humans)

Veen 5y ago

> But then people use that to argue that the people at the top deserve everything they have. Doesn't genetic endowment imply the exact opposite. If the "people at the top" got there because of a factor over which they had no influence—what was once called a gift—how can they deserve their place? You might argue that they are the people who should be at the top because of their abilities, but that has nothing to do with whether they deserve it or not.

ModernMech 5y ago
> If the "people at the top" got there because of a factor over which they had no influence—what was once called a gift—how can they deserve their place? The next step in the line of reasoning is that their genetics have divine provenance. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Wealth_Gospel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Wealth_Gospel Essentially: I'm rich because I'm smart, and I'm smart because God wanted me to be, therefore God wants me to be rich. Conversely God wants poor people to be poor. If He didn't want that, then He would have made them smarter.
lamontcg 5y ago
Yeah, that's where I'm trying to go with this argument. Them: You just need to believe that genetics matters! Me: Okay, fine I do. Them: Well, then you must agree with <probably something about meritocracy and billionaires and awarding wealth to the top 1%> Me: Nope, I still want to tax billionaires out of existence and use that to support your "stupid poors" and your ideal of a ruling class and an underclass with unlimited market exploitation created by birthright of genetics is wrong (again, for the sake of argument, it still doesn't really work this way). "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs" and they need more. Economically, Elon Musk should be playing with nightmare-mode level taxation levels, all the "stupid poors" need the difficulty slider backed off for them -- instead we have that nearly reversed. Whatever you call it (leftist/progressive/socialist) isn't founded at all on a rejection of genetics, attacking that gets you nowhere.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I think this just us back to the basic questions society has considered for hundreds of years. How to balance of equality of outcomes vs equal treatment. How to enable individuals to develop their productive ability. What quality of life we want to provide with charity to those with low economic productivity. What tax policies achieve these goals and favors the kind economic growth that raises all boats. In my opinion, I think all of the discussions about economic fairness and what people 'deserve' is just a side freakshow distracting from these real questions.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

imtringued 5y ago

>But then people use that to argue that the people at the top deserve everything they have. It's ironic. Because genetics are so vague and ambiguous unless it is about skin color. People attribute their success to themselves. So they automatically declare their genetics to be superior. The reason why it is so appealing to explain things with genetics is that genetics are permanent. If you are rich you will always be rich and the poor always poor. It then becomes a self fulfilling cycle because everyone falls for it and tries to keep people rich or poor with their genes as the justification. It's just a more scientific version of believing that god gave you your role. If genetics matter then genetics are just another form of luck where people want to read tea leaves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LopI4YeC4I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LopI4YeC4I