5 ms·

I don't believe this idea because few or nobody sees a moral problem in acknowledging there is a strong genetic component to physical attractiveness, or physica

I don't believe this idea because few or nobody sees a moral problem in acknowledging there is a strong genetic component to physical attractiveness, or physical features (like height) that give an advantage in "merit" in some paths of life. Nor do people have a problem acknowledging your parents, the country in which you were born, their wealth and fitness as "good parents" for the early years of your life plays a massive role in your chance of "success" in life, however you define that. I.e., all components of luck. You can believe it's reasonable for a person who can create more value for any reason deserves to be paid more, without believing their "merit" as a person is any different to anyone else. I don't think it's unfair or morally wrong that an attractive person can be paid to model whereas I can not. Or a very tall person could be paid to play basketball while a short person who has more skill and practiced much longer and harder can not.

luckylion 5y ago
> You can believe it's reasonable for a person who can create more value for any reason deserves to be paid more, without believing their "merit" as a person is any different to anyone else. I think progessives care mostly about the economic consequences, not a judgement of someone as a person.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  What are the economic consequences? Whether or not it is genetic or due to any other confluence of luck or upbringing or other personal attributes, the end result is the same. Also as I said, there seems to be no issues acknowledging reality of differences in physical attributes that are due to genetics.
  - luckylion 5y ago
    The end result between nurture vs nature might be the same, but if it's all nurture, than "we can change it" and no price is too high to get to "the new man". If it's not, even the best funded policies with the best intentions can only get you so far, and inequality will remain. Not because of a conspiracy that is keeping some down while lifting others up, but because of nature. I do believe that it would be good on all counts if they would accept genetics, because it would allow for asking much better questions, but I can see why they can't: they're heavily invested in the opposing position and few people are happy to just throw away an investment. > there seems to be no issues acknowledging reality of differences in physical attributes that are due to genetics. That's true, but maybe that's because they matter less? I.e. if inequality was primarily defined by height or beauty, they might have a harder time with it. Intelligence & related non-physical things are more important, I believe everybody intuitively accepts that.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      None of this seems plausible t me. Why should physical attributes matter less, and how much less exactly cross this supposed threshold between freely acknowledged and taboo on par with holocaust denial? Clearly the general idea of a "luck" element of advantage is not a problem in the slightest. And furthermore, looking into extremes, it's also perfectly clear that people are not actually against the idea that there is "unchangeable bad luck". A person with a severe genetic based mental disability (let's say downs syndrome) is clearly extremely unlikely to ever create much value or be paid much money and nobody has a problem with that (again I'm talking purely economically, not their value as a person or the love and happiness they bring to others).
      - luckylion 5y ago
        > Why should physical attributes matter less, and how much less exactly cross this supposed threshold between freely acknowledged and taboo on par with holocaust denial? I believe they matter less because they're not a great predictor for success. You have plenty of very attractive people working the checkout at the super market, but few very smart people. At the same time, the super successful people aren't considered beautiful by most people. The same is true for essentially all other physical attributes -- having great hearing won't teleport you into the top 10% of wealth. I don't think either idea should be taboo, obviously. Fair point about people with severe genetic disadvantages. I guess most people broadly categorize them into a different group and measure their success relative to that group ("he's doing great, he can often manage his daily chores alone"), not compared to "normal" people. It's more of a achievement vs perceived potential, I think.
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
        > I believe they matter less because they're not a great predictor for success. You have plenty of very attractive people working the checkout at the super market, but few very smart people. You can see whether or not they are smart, can you? > At the same time, the super successful people aren't considered beautiful by most people. The same is true for essentially all other physical attributes -- having great hearing won't teleport you into the top 10% of wealth. I don't think either idea should be taboo, obviously. This just all seems like complete handwaving to make observations fit the hypothesis. What we do know for sure is that people are not at all hesitant about attributing to luck/genetics many things which affect a person's ability to contribute, create value, and earn money. Both physical and intellectual conditions, as well as circumstances of birth. So the burden of proof required to claim otherwise for specific cases has to be far higher than this.
ZephyrBlu 5y ago
My hypothesis is that people believe intelligence is less genetic and more changeable than physical features purely because it makes sense intuitively. It's hard to change you height, but your mind? Of course you can change that!
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  I don't think it makes more sense intuitively at all. With the vast range of physical differences we see in people due to genetics, it is not at all intuitive to me to stick to some old dogma that says the brain -- one of the most highly specialized and evolved organ of the animal kingdom -- would not have significant diversity due to genetics. You can exercise and train your mind of course, as you can with your body. I don't see that as a plausible reason people believe this way. I think they are stuck in the anti-scientific, anti-intellectual dogma for reasons that are not rational.
courtf 5y ago
It only becomes a moral issue if someone who does not happen to stand out along one if the axes that is currently rewarded by society ends up suffering significantly as a result and cannot find ways to succeed in life. Individuals may possess a great many valuable traits that are worth encouraging but simply aren't rewarded as well when it comes time to divvy up the loot. Sort of like being an essential worker during Covid who holds the line against a pandemic to keep society functioning but can't afford to raise a family in the income from that ostensibly important job.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  I don't think it is ever a moral issue at all. It would be a real moral problem to have others judge the value that someone is able to contribute by strange factors like this -- some faceless "expert" decides the NBA player has to forfeit their income because they are over 7'2". The real moral issue is popularizing the idea that it is unfair or the gains ill-gotten if people are successful, that their earnings are like loot that should have been "divvied up". It comes from and breeds jealously, resentment, division, hate, and crab mentality. If people do well because they are intellectually gifted, physically gifted, because they work hard or because their parents raised them well or because a coach just happened to see them playing basketball while sitting in traffic driving through a poor neighborhood. Then great. Someone else doing well does not make my life worse. I also think there should be various safety nets so the poorest and least skilled people can have at least basic access to necessities and training if they would be otherwise unable to support themselves.
  - courtf 5y ago
    > The real moral issue is popularizing the idea that it is unfair or the gains ill-gotten if people are successful, that their earnings are like loot that should have been "divvied up". It comes from and breeds jealously, resentment, division, hate, and crab mentality. That's not really what I'm saying. The ways in which society hands out wealth and power today are not necessarily the ways in which it always has or always will. What specific traits lend one toward success are a bit subjective and take different forms at different times and places. So if right now, some individual cannot succeed as easily as another, those tables may very well turn at some point in the future. To the degree that we justify whoever is being rewarded now, because they are smart/resilient/beautiful (by current standards) or whatever allows them to succeed, we must also acknowledge that under different circumstances it may very well be that we would be congratulating someone else for completely different justifying reasons. By the same token, if someone is not rewarded by society, we should resist the urge to justify their lack of success in terms of some intrinsic deficiency, when indeed they very well may have succeeded with the same traits in a different version of society. The arbitrary nature of how society chooses to reward individuals clashes with attempts to justify the status quo, which would much prefer to describe outcomes as an inevitable consequence of various conditions, like genetics, that can be used to explain why some are wealthy/powerful and others destitute. It is this framing that I find to be morally suspect, because it tries to justify the current social hierarchy in absolute terms, when the reality is a bit more complex and subject to the prevailing whims of the times we live in. > If people do well because they are intellectually gifted, physically gifted, because they work hard or because their parents raised them well or because a coach just happened to see them playing basketball while sitting in traffic driving through a poor neighborhood. Then great. Someone else doing well does not make my life worse. Agreed. I only want to acknowledge that these are but a few of the many ways society can choose to value its individual members. The genetics, or upbringing, or nutrition, or behaviors of those who have achieved success are not predictive of obtaining wealth or power in all versions of society, past and present, and so should not necessarily be treated as more important or superior in any universal way.
nomoreplease 5y ago
Then why are the Leftist professors in the article so opposed? Why are they comparing her work to climate change denial and Holocaust denial? Why are they so opposed to the obvious logical conclusion
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  All people turn anti-science, anti-curious reality deniers when they feel their cultish extreme views are threatened by questions. And some turn into nasty hateful bullies. A leftist is not immune, and a professor is certainly not immune to this.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  Because you have to adjust your mental model to explain IQ differences in ethnic groups. That really shouldn't be a problem, but it's my best guess as to why.

luckylion 5y ago

> You can believe it's reasonable for a person who can create more value for any reason deserves to be paid more, without believing their "merit" as a person is any different to anyone else. I think progessives care mostly about the economic consequences, not a judgement of someone as a person.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
What are the economic consequences? Whether or not it is genetic or due to any other confluence of luck or upbringing or other personal attributes, the end result is the same. Also as I said, there seems to be no issues acknowledging reality of differences in physical attributes that are due to genetics.
- luckylion 5y ago
  The end result between nurture vs nature might be the same, but if it's all nurture, than "we can change it" and no price is too high to get to "the new man". If it's not, even the best funded policies with the best intentions can only get you so far, and inequality will remain. Not because of a conspiracy that is keeping some down while lifting others up, but because of nature. I do believe that it would be good on all counts if they would accept genetics, because it would allow for asking much better questions, but I can see why they can't: they're heavily invested in the opposing position and few people are happy to just throw away an investment. > there seems to be no issues acknowledging reality of differences in physical attributes that are due to genetics. That's true, but maybe that's because they matter less? I.e. if inequality was primarily defined by height or beauty, they might have a harder time with it. Intelligence & related non-physical things are more important, I believe everybody intuitively accepts that.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    None of this seems plausible t me. Why should physical attributes matter less, and how much less exactly cross this supposed threshold between freely acknowledged and taboo on par with holocaust denial? Clearly the general idea of a "luck" element of advantage is not a problem in the slightest. And furthermore, looking into extremes, it's also perfectly clear that people are not actually against the idea that there is "unchangeable bad luck". A person with a severe genetic based mental disability (let's say downs syndrome) is clearly extremely unlikely to ever create much value or be paid much money and nobody has a problem with that (again I'm talking purely economically, not their value as a person or the love and happiness they bring to others).
    - luckylion 5y ago
      > Why should physical attributes matter less, and how much less exactly cross this supposed threshold between freely acknowledged and taboo on par with holocaust denial? I believe they matter less because they're not a great predictor for success. You have plenty of very attractive people working the checkout at the super market, but few very smart people. At the same time, the super successful people aren't considered beautiful by most people. The same is true for essentially all other physical attributes -- having great hearing won't teleport you into the top 10% of wealth. I don't think either idea should be taboo, obviously. Fair point about people with severe genetic disadvantages. I guess most people broadly categorize them into a different group and measure their success relative to that group ("he's doing great, he can often manage his daily chores alone"), not compared to "normal" people. It's more of a achievement vs perceived potential, I think.
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago
        > I believe they matter less because they're not a great predictor for success. You have plenty of very attractive people working the checkout at the super market, but few very smart people. You can see whether or not they are smart, can you? > At the same time, the super successful people aren't considered beautiful by most people. The same is true for essentially all other physical attributes -- having great hearing won't teleport you into the top 10% of wealth. I don't think either idea should be taboo, obviously. This just all seems like complete handwaving to make observations fit the hypothesis. What we do know for sure is that people are not at all hesitant about attributing to luck/genetics many things which affect a person's ability to contribute, create value, and earn money. Both physical and intellectual conditions, as well as circumstances of birth. So the burden of proof required to claim otherwise for specific cases has to be far higher than this.

ZephyrBlu 5y ago

My hypothesis is that people believe intelligence is less genetic and more changeable than physical features purely because it makes sense intuitively. It's hard to change you height, but your mind? Of course you can change that!

throwawaylinux 5y ago
I don't think it makes more sense intuitively at all. With the vast range of physical differences we see in people due to genetics, it is not at all intuitive to me to stick to some old dogma that says the brain -- one of the most highly specialized and evolved organ of the animal kingdom -- would not have significant diversity due to genetics. You can exercise and train your mind of course, as you can with your body. I don't see that as a plausible reason people believe this way. I think they are stuck in the anti-scientific, anti-intellectual dogma for reasons that are not rational.

courtf 5y ago

It only becomes a moral issue if someone who does not happen to stand out along one if the axes that is currently rewarded by society ends up suffering significantly as a result and cannot find ways to succeed in life. Individuals may possess a great many valuable traits that are worth encouraging but simply aren't rewarded as well when it comes time to divvy up the loot. Sort of like being an essential worker during Covid who holds the line against a pandemic to keep society functioning but can't afford to raise a family in the income from that ostensibly important job.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
I don't think it is ever a moral issue at all. It would be a real moral problem to have others judge the value that someone is able to contribute by strange factors like this -- some faceless "expert" decides the NBA player has to forfeit their income because they are over 7'2". The real moral issue is popularizing the idea that it is unfair or the gains ill-gotten if people are successful, that their earnings are like loot that should have been "divvied up". It comes from and breeds jealously, resentment, division, hate, and crab mentality. If people do well because they are intellectually gifted, physically gifted, because they work hard or because their parents raised them well or because a coach just happened to see them playing basketball while sitting in traffic driving through a poor neighborhood. Then great. Someone else doing well does not make my life worse. I also think there should be various safety nets so the poorest and least skilled people can have at least basic access to necessities and training if they would be otherwise unable to support themselves.
- courtf 5y ago
  > The real moral issue is popularizing the idea that it is unfair or the gains ill-gotten if people are successful, that their earnings are like loot that should have been "divvied up". It comes from and breeds jealously, resentment, division, hate, and crab mentality. That's not really what I'm saying. The ways in which society hands out wealth and power today are not necessarily the ways in which it always has or always will. What specific traits lend one toward success are a bit subjective and take different forms at different times and places. So if right now, some individual cannot succeed as easily as another, those tables may very well turn at some point in the future. To the degree that we justify whoever is being rewarded now, because they are smart/resilient/beautiful (by current standards) or whatever allows them to succeed, we must also acknowledge that under different circumstances it may very well be that we would be congratulating someone else for completely different justifying reasons. By the same token, if someone is not rewarded by society, we should resist the urge to justify their lack of success in terms of some intrinsic deficiency, when indeed they very well may have succeeded with the same traits in a different version of society. The arbitrary nature of how society chooses to reward individuals clashes with attempts to justify the status quo, which would much prefer to describe outcomes as an inevitable consequence of various conditions, like genetics, that can be used to explain why some are wealthy/powerful and others destitute. It is this framing that I find to be morally suspect, because it tries to justify the current social hierarchy in absolute terms, when the reality is a bit more complex and subject to the prevailing whims of the times we live in. > If people do well because they are intellectually gifted, physically gifted, because they work hard or because their parents raised them well or because a coach just happened to see them playing basketball while sitting in traffic driving through a poor neighborhood. Then great. Someone else doing well does not make my life worse. Agreed. I only want to acknowledge that these are but a few of the many ways society can choose to value its individual members. The genetics, or upbringing, or nutrition, or behaviors of those who have achieved success are not predictive of obtaining wealth or power in all versions of society, past and present, and so should not necessarily be treated as more important or superior in any universal way.

nomoreplease 5y ago

Then why are the Leftist professors in the article so opposed? Why are they comparing her work to climate change denial and Holocaust denial? Why are they so opposed to the obvious logical conclusion

throwawaylinux 5y ago
All people turn anti-science, anti-curious reality deniers when they feel their cultish extreme views are threatened by questions. And some turn into nasty hateful bullies. A leftist is not immune, and a professor is certainly not immune to this.
DangitBobby 5y ago
Because you have to adjust your mental model to explain IQ differences in ethnic groups. That really shouldn't be a problem, but it's my best guess as to why.