4 ms·

"Eugenics was a failure because it fundamentally misunderstands human development and behavior. We now have strong evidence that nurture and social expectations

"Eugenics was a failure because it fundamentally misunderstands human development and behavior. We now have strong evidence that nurture and social expectations play a bigger role in behavior and outcomes than your genetics" is a much, much, much stronger answer than "we don't talk about eugenics". The semantic stop sign betrays weakness, like eugenics might maybe have some secret kernal of truth. The thrashing of it is both scientifically correct and demystifies it.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
And now you're having a nature vs nurture debate at work, how is this a better outcome? That approach assumes that 1) every venue is an appropriate venue for a debate, 2) that everyone who supports a value or norm is educated enough on it to explain its technical merits to a skeptical audience and 3) everyone is capable of defending that idea against a hostile debate opponent in public. To me "we decided, it's not like that here" is firm and clear, communicates that this is a social norm that is not up for debate at this time in this venue, without necessarily declaring it's absolutely final or that there is no appropriate venue. There are not really any perfect solutions here but this is a quite good one.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  If you don't want to have the debate, then why say "we don't do that here"? That is a pretty confrontational thing to say. Why not let the comment you don't like go? Also, who is "we"? If you have a 5-person company and you hire 10 more people, should the social rules decided by the first 5 be dictated to the other 10? Or should they be changed to make everyone maximally comfortable? These aren't questions that you should necessarily answer on the spot, but these are questions that have to be answered.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    Why not let the comment you don't like go? because sometimes it needs to be made clear that such comments are not acceptable here. you could say it in different words, like for example: "in this company such comments are considered inappropriate" or "we don't make such jokes here" If you have a 5-person company and you hire 10 more people, should the social rules decided by the first 5 be dictated to the other 10? initially yes. later when everyone knows each other better, there is time and room to reconsider and maybe debate the finer points of some specific rules.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      I think the point is, the specific wording "we don't do that here" is patronizing and othering. If you want to tell someone "don't say that," just say it. "Don't say that, I prefer to be called 'homosexual'" is even better (using the "gay" example). Also, the idea of "reconsidering the finer points of the rules" is really interesting - it suggests that the comfort of the first 5 matters more than the comfort of everyone else. What if the first 5 people were hyper-religious conservatives who hired 10 progressives and want to keep hiring progressives? Should it still only be the finer points of the rules that get discussed? Or should it be understood that their culture of prayers every day doesn't scale up, and that a lot of things need to be re-worked? This can also be true of hyper-progressive people. A culture of offense-taking at little things, language policing, and social justice book clubs is as non-inclusive as a culture of daily prayers. "We don't do that here" is exclusionary language, and so are the other two comments you suggested. Both use "we" to fabricate consensus (has the company really decided as a group that this particular speech pattern is banned?) and shame the other party as an outsider. That is not the right way to create respect.
      - em-bee 4y ago
        I think the point is, the specific wording "we don't do that here" is patronizing and othering. ok, i kind of agree with that. i was not responding to that part of the comment. the idea of "reconsidering the finer points of the rules" is really interesting - it suggests that the comfort of the first 5 matters more than the comfort of everyone else no, it suggests that when 10 individuals join an existing team, they ought to learn more about the team culture first, before they try to make changes, unless the existing culture is clearly hostile to some people. consider the difference between 10 new people joining all at once or one at a time, a few weeks apart. why should 10 new people get the right to dominate the culture that i am trying to build in my company? i am paying you, so you follow my culture. once we know each other better, then you may start pointing out problems that you discover. but if you come in and start being disruptive because you disagree with my company culture, then you better go look for another job. even if i am wrong, that's not the way to implement changes. the critical point is, that such issues are not a question of majority, but one of inclusiveness. we want to reject a culture that excludes some people. so if the original 5 people have a problematic culture, then the newcomers are good to try to change that (but being disruptive is unlikely to work), but if it is the reverse, then it's the newcomers that need to adjust. EDIT: added some clarifications.
JackFr 4y ago
> "Eugenics was a failure because it fundamentally misunderstands human development and behavior. We now have strong evidence that nurture and social expectations play a bigger role in behavior and outcomes than your genetics" Wait - you think the problem with eugenics is that it was ineffective? I think we need to talk a lot more about eugenics.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  If you go the "Eugenics was racist..." route you're going to be met with the "but what if we do non-racist eugenics.." Or we can just nip the whole thing because failure and racist failure are both just failure.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    how about eugenics is immoral because every human being deserves to live and reproduce.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      We give genetic testing to every person for free at a few of their regular checkups with their primary care doctor. If you test positive for some genetic markers, you get free IVF, paid for by the government. If you have some kind of anti-IVF bent, it's not mandatory, just a benefit you aren't using. The IVF process picks embryos that have the least undesirable traits - but you will definitely have a kid and it will be yours. You have eugenics and no forced sterilization, no murdering people, nothing. It still won't work, but you have ethical eugenics.
bena 4y ago
Eugenics works. We know it does. We use it all day every day. With livestock, with plants, with all sorts of organisms. We breed for traits. That's eugenics. The reason we don't practice eugenics with humans is that it removes our agency and tramples our rights. And that's morally abhorrent. We don't need to pretend that it doesn't work. We just need to acknowledge that directing the procreation of other humans is just flat out morally wrong.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Eugenics doesn't work. The goal of Eugenics is not to grow more corn or make people more fertile. If those were it's goals, it could work. Eugenics specifically aims to change the social situation (poverty, crime, drug use, etc) by changing the gene pool. That will never work, crime is not a genetic condition. What you describe is genetic modification, not eugenics.
  - bena 4y ago
    Have you seen dogs? You can breed for traits. I'm fully capable of realizing that forced breeding/sterilization is inhumane and also be aware that it is capable of getting results.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      We both agree bad things are bad, agreed. But really, eugenics doesn't work. If you go to a really crime filled area, legally/ethically adopt a dozen babies and raise them in a low crime area.. they will look like the area they were raised in, not like the kids who grew up in a high crime area. The inverse holds too. Go take a dozen babies from a low crime area, throw them in a dangerous high crime area, and they will be criminals. With animals, you can breed for some general traits but not consistently. Some German shepherds don't take orders well. Some non-herding dogs will be great at herding. If you want to raise, eg a police k9, you need to start with a very young dog (or get lucky), you can't randomly pull from a breed (oh, this dog is a GS, they will be a great police k9). If you engage in a really aggressive eugenics program you will.. basically not change anything.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

And now you're having a nature vs nurture debate at work, how is this a better outcome? That approach assumes that 1) every venue is an appropriate venue for a debate, 2) that everyone who supports a value or norm is educated enough on it to explain its technical merits to a skeptical audience and 3) everyone is capable of defending that idea against a hostile debate opponent in public. To me "we decided, it's not like that here" is firm and clear, communicates that this is a social norm that is not up for debate at this time in this venue, without necessarily declaring it's absolutely final or that there is no appropriate venue. There are not really any perfect solutions here but this is a quite good one.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
If you don't want to have the debate, then why say "we don't do that here"? That is a pretty confrontational thing to say. Why not let the comment you don't like go? Also, who is "we"? If you have a 5-person company and you hire 10 more people, should the social rules decided by the first 5 be dictated to the other 10? Or should they be changed to make everyone maximally comfortable? These aren't questions that you should necessarily answer on the spot, but these are questions that have to be answered.
- em-bee 4y ago
  Why not let the comment you don't like go? because sometimes it needs to be made clear that such comments are not acceptable here. you could say it in different words, like for example: "in this company such comments are considered inappropriate" or "we don't make such jokes here" If you have a 5-person company and you hire 10 more people, should the social rules decided by the first 5 be dictated to the other 10? initially yes. later when everyone knows each other better, there is time and room to reconsider and maybe debate the finer points of some specific rules.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    I think the point is, the specific wording "we don't do that here" is patronizing and othering. If you want to tell someone "don't say that," just say it. "Don't say that, I prefer to be called 'homosexual'" is even better (using the "gay" example). Also, the idea of "reconsidering the finer points of the rules" is really interesting - it suggests that the comfort of the first 5 matters more than the comfort of everyone else. What if the first 5 people were hyper-religious conservatives who hired 10 progressives and want to keep hiring progressives? Should it still only be the finer points of the rules that get discussed? Or should it be understood that their culture of prayers every day doesn't scale up, and that a lot of things need to be re-worked? This can also be true of hyper-progressive people. A culture of offense-taking at little things, language policing, and social justice book clubs is as non-inclusive as a culture of daily prayers. "We don't do that here" is exclusionary language, and so are the other two comments you suggested. Both use "we" to fabricate consensus (has the company really decided as a group that this particular speech pattern is banned?) and shame the other party as an outsider. That is not the right way to create respect.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      I think the point is, the specific wording "we don't do that here" is patronizing and othering. ok, i kind of agree with that. i was not responding to that part of the comment. the idea of "reconsidering the finer points of the rules" is really interesting - it suggests that the comfort of the first 5 matters more than the comfort of everyone else no, it suggests that when 10 individuals join an existing team, they ought to learn more about the team culture first, before they try to make changes, unless the existing culture is clearly hostile to some people. consider the difference between 10 new people joining all at once or one at a time, a few weeks apart. why should 10 new people get the right to dominate the culture that i am trying to build in my company? i am paying you, so you follow my culture. once we know each other better, then you may start pointing out problems that you discover. but if you come in and start being disruptive because you disagree with my company culture, then you better go look for another job. even if i am wrong, that's not the way to implement changes. the critical point is, that such issues are not a question of majority, but one of inclusiveness. we want to reject a culture that excludes some people. so if the original 5 people have a problematic culture, then the newcomers are good to try to change that (but being disruptive is unlikely to work), but if it is the reverse, then it's the newcomers that need to adjust. EDIT: added some clarifications.

JackFr 4y ago

> "Eugenics was a failure because it fundamentally misunderstands human development and behavior. We now have strong evidence that nurture and social expectations play a bigger role in behavior and outcomes than your genetics" Wait - you think the problem with eugenics is that it was ineffective? I think we need to talk a lot more about eugenics.

vorpalhex 4y ago
If you go the "Eugenics was racist..." route you're going to be met with the "but what if we do non-racist eugenics.." Or we can just nip the whole thing because failure and racist failure are both just failure.
- em-bee 4y ago
  how about eugenics is immoral because every human being deserves to live and reproduce.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    We give genetic testing to every person for free at a few of their regular checkups with their primary care doctor. If you test positive for some genetic markers, you get free IVF, paid for by the government. If you have some kind of anti-IVF bent, it's not mandatory, just a benefit you aren't using. The IVF process picks embryos that have the least undesirable traits - but you will definitely have a kid and it will be yours. You have eugenics and no forced sterilization, no murdering people, nothing. It still won't work, but you have ethical eugenics.

bena 4y ago

Eugenics works. We know it does. We use it all day every day. With livestock, with plants, with all sorts of organisms. We breed for traits. That's eugenics. The reason we don't practice eugenics with humans is that it removes our agency and tramples our rights. And that's morally abhorrent. We don't need to pretend that it doesn't work. We just need to acknowledge that directing the procreation of other humans is just flat out morally wrong.

vorpalhex 4y ago
Eugenics doesn't work. The goal of Eugenics is not to grow more corn or make people more fertile. If those were it's goals, it could work. Eugenics specifically aims to change the social situation (poverty, crime, drug use, etc) by changing the gene pool. That will never work, crime is not a genetic condition. What you describe is genetic modification, not eugenics.
- bena 4y ago
  Have you seen dogs? You can breed for traits. I'm fully capable of realizing that forced breeding/sterilization is inhumane and also be aware that it is capable of getting results.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    We both agree bad things are bad, agreed. But really, eugenics doesn't work. If you go to a really crime filled area, legally/ethically adopt a dozen babies and raise them in a low crime area.. they will look like the area they were raised in, not like the kids who grew up in a high crime area. The inverse holds too. Go take a dozen babies from a low crime area, throw them in a dangerous high crime area, and they will be criminals. With animals, you can breed for some general traits but not consistently. Some German shepherds don't take orders well. Some non-herding dogs will be great at herding. If you want to raise, eg a police k9, you need to start with a very young dog (or get lucky), you can't randomly pull from a breed (oh, this dog is a GS, they will be a great police k9). If you engage in a really aggressive eugenics program you will.. basically not change anything.