3 ms·

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 resu

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.

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.