4 ms·

I think you're missing part of the movie's message. And that was that no one wants to live in a world where their life and capabilities are pre-determined. The

I think you're missing part of the movie's message. And that was that no one wants to live in a world where their life and capabilities are pre-determined. The audience is supposed to feel that viscerally as we see Vincent's striving and frustration. The story is told from an individual perspective because we are, after all, individuals. In that sense, our emotional reaction to our lives matters and society should care about that. Put another way, there's a tail in every distribution. From the point of view of an individual that ends up in the tail, being passed over for the good things in life feels like a great injustice. And the fact is that we may not be aware of all the characteristics that could make someone successful. Maybe that's what makes evolution as a process so effective. In Vincent's case, he was able to beat his brother swimming out to sea because he was at peace with the uncertainty that his life had forced on him. Anton didn't have that strength because he'd been told his whole life that he was destined for success. Even though Anton should have won, it turned out that Vincent's attitude made him more fit to survive which was something that the massive statistical apparatus of his society couldn't have predicted.

davesque 4y ago
I see that fallingknife wasn't able to respond directly so I'll give a quote and response to something they said here: >> no one wants to live in a world where their life and capabilities are pre-determined > But we do live in that world. It was determined that I would never play in the NFL the day sperm met egg. If you're arguing that the plot of the movie is implausible, yes I agree. It's using an extreme example to drive a point home as stories often do. But, for the sake of argument, there are a couple things I would say. For one, I think the example of the NFL isn't great. American football is a fairly simple game that clearly favors a narrow set of characteristics. In that sense, I don't think there's any great societal harm that comes from excluding people that aren't as physically strong. The dynamics of the game aren't that complicated. People who are stronger will generally perform better. That's why the game exists: to see people push the limits of a narrow set of abilities. I think Gattaca really has more to say about restricting people's access to a more general set of opportunities; ones for which we can define some standardized measures of success but whose dynamics are much more complicated. I think education and everything that comes from it fits into that category. In that area, there's a very real sense in which people who don't look the part are the target of prejudices that lessen their likelihood of success, regardless of ability. That's what I meant when I said there's a long tail to every distribution. If you happen to fall in the long tail, you wouldn't want to be passed over just for having a certain characteristic. Ideally, we would be able to measure the characteristic we care about directly instead of depending on statistical likelihoods, as standardized tests like the SAT aim to do. But in practice this seems really hard to do reliably. There are still many reasons a person might get a bad score on the SAT and yet still possess some great qualities that the world could benefit from. That's why schools consider more than just test scores in applications. If the criteria by which we judge things are too simplistic, the results are worse. That's true for email spam filters and it's true for college admissions. Although maybe it's less true for the NFL.

davesque 4y ago

I see that fallingknife wasn't able to respond directly so I'll give a quote and response to something they said here: >> no one wants to live in a world where their life and capabilities are pre-determined > But we do live in that world. It was determined that I would never play in the NFL the day sperm met egg. If you're arguing that the plot of the movie is implausible, yes I agree. It's using an extreme example to drive a point home as stories often do. But, for the sake of argument, there are a couple things I would say. For one, I think the example of the NFL isn't great. American football is a fairly simple game that clearly favors a narrow set of characteristics. In that sense, I don't think there's any great societal harm that comes from excluding people that aren't as physically strong. The dynamics of the game aren't that complicated. People who are stronger will generally perform better. That's why the game exists: to see people push the limits of a narrow set of abilities. I think Gattaca really has more to say about restricting people's access to a more general set of opportunities; ones for which we can define some standardized measures of success but whose dynamics are much more complicated. I think education and everything that comes from it fits into that category. In that area, there's a very real sense in which people who don't look the part are the target of prejudices that lessen their likelihood of success, regardless of ability. That's what I meant when I said there's a long tail to every distribution. If you happen to fall in the long tail, you wouldn't want to be passed over just for having a certain characteristic. Ideally, we would be able to measure the characteristic we care about directly instead of depending on statistical likelihoods, as standardized tests like the SAT aim to do. But in practice this seems really hard to do reliably. There are still many reasons a person might get a bad score on the SAT and yet still possess some great qualities that the world could benefit from. That's why schools consider more than just test scores in applications. If the criteria by which we judge things are too simplistic, the results are worse. That's true for email spam filters and it's true for college admissions. Although maybe it's less true for the NFL.