> To oversimplify natural selection into “if you’re dumb, you might die and that’s good for the future of humanity” is absurd. There are many reasons why smart

> To oversimplify natural selection into “if you’re dumb, you might die and that’s good for the future of humanity” is absurd. There are many reasons why smart people do dumb things, like drive recklessly, use dangerous substances, or are careless with weapons. Their children might never follow that behavior. This type of argument doesn't sit well with me. "Oh it's complicated and not a guarantee, merely a correlation.. so the initial claim is entirely false." It's the old "behavior is 100% genetic or 100% environmental, no middle ground" false dichotomy, just camouflaged a little. You can apply this "it's complicated" to every phenomenon that you'd rather not understand - there's always extra detail affecting things that is poorly understood. E.g. there are many reasons short giraffes fail to produce offspring, but not being tall enough to reach leaves is one of them. It is a simplification (maybe some would have grown tall, but just didn't get enough food?), but a useful and legitimate one. I agree with her points about schadenfreude and judging people, but just because we find something morally distasteful does not make it factually untrue.