4 ms·

> that while of course various aspects of intelligence can be affected by genetics Yep this is what I was looking for. Given this, the original claim isn't rig

> that while of course various aspects of intelligence can be affected by genetics Yep this is what I was looking for. Given this, the original claim isn't right > Can you demonstrate that genetic factors play a stronger part in how our society defines "intelligence" than the things I mentioned? Claim above was that intelligence "is really just" access to education, but now the goalpost has shifted Now it's that access to education is "the most significant part". Is it? How could we know either way? By churning out a bunch of studies? The claim still isn't falsifiable

komali2 4y ago
> Claim above was that intelligence "is really just" access to education, but now the goalpost has shifted It really is just that. Similarly, strength is really just about how much you work out. "But genetic factors!!" Eh, it's mostly just about how much you work out. It's not really worth talking about genetic factors when the majority of the population can't do a single pullup. Are we moving goalposts, or rather just doing actionable conversations? > Now it's that access to education is "the most significant part". Is it? How could we know either way? By churning out a bunch of studies? The claim still isn't falsifiable I'm not going to do your work for you. For some reason you really wanna talk about genes. I'll be honest, I'm going to take you at good faith here, but I'm mighty suspicious of where you're hoping this conversation will go. Why are you more interested in talking about genetic factors of intelligence than the far more significant factors in economic conditions? What's the deal here? Where you going with this?
- spritefs 4y ago
  > Similarly, strength is really just about how much you work out. Some people can get shredded really easily because of genetics. Some people are just naturally more fit than others > but I'm mighty suspicious of where you're hoping this conversation will go. My point is your initial point is an oversimplification. If you throw the same resources at the same group of people from a similar socioeconomic status, there will still be a difference of ability. Some people will move faster than others So the crux of my argument is this: just because there's an inequality of outcome does not imply that the cause is purely socioeconomic. Given constitutional differences, striving for equality of outcome is a sub-optimal use of resources Should there be standards or some kind of baseline? Yes. But striving for absolute equality of outcome at the expense of everything else is a net negative for society
  - komali2 4y ago
    Nobody is talking about equality of outcome except you. Why did you bring it up? It is good and right to provide good and equal educational opportunities to people regardless of economic status. Countries like the USA aren't, and should. What are you arguing for here, some kind of genetic evaluation first to make sure we aren't "wasting resources" on a kid that will do math a little more slow? Why not just redirect abundance to the point it doesn't matter?

komali2 4y ago

> Claim above was that intelligence "is really just" access to education, but now the goalpost has shifted It really is just that. Similarly, strength is really just about how much you work out. "But genetic factors!!" Eh, it's mostly just about how much you work out. It's not really worth talking about genetic factors when the majority of the population can't do a single pullup. Are we moving goalposts, or rather just doing actionable conversations? > Now it's that access to education is "the most significant part". Is it? How could we know either way? By churning out a bunch of studies? The claim still isn't falsifiable I'm not going to do your work for you. For some reason you really wanna talk about genes. I'll be honest, I'm going to take you at good faith here, but I'm mighty suspicious of where you're hoping this conversation will go. Why are you more interested in talking about genetic factors of intelligence than the far more significant factors in economic conditions? What's the deal here? Where you going with this?

spritefs 4y ago
> Similarly, strength is really just about how much you work out. Some people can get shredded really easily because of genetics. Some people are just naturally more fit than others > but I'm mighty suspicious of where you're hoping this conversation will go. My point is your initial point is an oversimplification. If you throw the same resources at the same group of people from a similar socioeconomic status, there will still be a difference of ability. Some people will move faster than others So the crux of my argument is this: just because there's an inequality of outcome does not imply that the cause is purely socioeconomic. Given constitutional differences, striving for equality of outcome is a sub-optimal use of resources Should there be standards or some kind of baseline? Yes. But striving for absolute equality of outcome at the expense of everything else is a net negative for society
- komali2 4y ago
  Nobody is talking about equality of outcome except you. Why did you bring it up? It is good and right to provide good and equal educational opportunities to people regardless of economic status. Countries like the USA aren't, and should. What are you arguing for here, some kind of genetic evaluation first to make sure we aren't "wasting resources" on a kid that will do math a little more slow? Why not just redirect abundance to the point it doesn't matter?