4 ms·

> First we would need to conclude that there is such a group of people. Do we need to agree that first? One of two things are true, at least in broad outline:

> First we would need to conclude that there is such a group of people. Do we need to agree that first? One of two things are true, at least in broad outline: 1. Intelligence is genetic, so there are people who are more of less intelligent due to the luck of the genetic lottery. 2. Intelligence is due to employing the right learning methods, and some people are less intelligent due to not having been educated correctly. Either way, there are some people who have bad luck when it comes to intelligence. And even if perfect education could in theory equalise these intelligence outcomes, making society more "inclusive" for the less intelligent might be the best thing to do until we manage to perfect our systems of education (if we ever do).

kelipso 3y ago
For completion, there's also 3. diet (e.g, iodine) and environmental (e.g, lead)
constantcrying 3y ago
If intelligence is mostly education, pandering to the low achievers is cruel. Instead of giving them the means to succeed (those means exist, as proven by their peers), they get handouts from the "lucky" people. Completely unacceptable, Education does not need to be perfect, I had the same teachers as my peers, many of them did far worse than me. If it is truly purely random chance that I learned far more than they did, not teaching them is a bizarre form of cruelty. >luck of the genetic lottery What? Genes are not luck, you literally are a genetic combination of your parents. Sure, there is variation, but your parents determine what the mean of that variation is. E.g. height is absolutely related to your parents height, so are many illnesses.
- helpfulmandrill 3y ago
  If your definition of "luck" is so restrictive as to say that a person's genes aren't luck, then probably nothing counts as luck for you. From the perspective of the person "receiving" genes and their moral deservingness, if they aren't purely random, they might as well be. In terms of education, I agree that if we have the means to do better then it is cruel not to. But we probably don't, and aren't likely to soon, short of a fully completed science of the human brain. The success of my peers absolutely does not prove that the means exist that would work for me, in my particular circumstances and given my particular starting point.
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    >But we probably don' We do. As is evident by the existence of many highly educated people. >The success of my peers absolutely does not prove that the means exist that would work for me, in my particular circumstances and given my particular starting point. It does. Unless there is some non-environmental difference. >If your definition of "luck" is so restrictive as to say that a person's genes aren't luck They aren't luck since they are predictable to a certain extent. It isn't luck that you get a high paying job after geting a good education either.

kelipso 3y ago

For completion, there's also 3. diet (e.g, iodine) and environmental (e.g, lead)

constantcrying 3y ago

If intelligence is mostly education, pandering to the low achievers is cruel. Instead of giving them the means to succeed (those means exist, as proven by their peers), they get handouts from the "lucky" people. Completely unacceptable, Education does not need to be perfect, I had the same teachers as my peers, many of them did far worse than me. If it is truly purely random chance that I learned far more than they did, not teaching them is a bizarre form of cruelty. >luck of the genetic lottery What? Genes are not luck, you literally are a genetic combination of your parents. Sure, there is variation, but your parents determine what the mean of that variation is. E.g. height is absolutely related to your parents height, so are many illnesses.

helpfulmandrill 3y ago
If your definition of "luck" is so restrictive as to say that a person's genes aren't luck, then probably nothing counts as luck for you. From the perspective of the person "receiving" genes and their moral deservingness, if they aren't purely random, they might as well be. In terms of education, I agree that if we have the means to do better then it is cruel not to. But we probably don't, and aren't likely to soon, short of a fully completed science of the human brain. The success of my peers absolutely does not prove that the means exist that would work for me, in my particular circumstances and given my particular starting point.
- constantcrying 3y ago
  >But we probably don' We do. As is evident by the existence of many highly educated people. >The success of my peers absolutely does not prove that the means exist that would work for me, in my particular circumstances and given my particular starting point. It does. Unless there is some non-environmental difference. >If your definition of "luck" is so restrictive as to say that a person's genes aren't luck They aren't luck since they are predictable to a certain extent. It isn't luck that you get a high paying job after geting a good education either.