5 ms·

> In fact, the reverse path could be true: that differences in brain function cause lower SES. Except the ACE study exists, showing a massive difference in bra

> In fact, the reverse path could be true: that differences in brain function cause lower SES. Except the ACE study exists, showing a massive difference in brain function and attainment based on childhood adversity, regardless of SES. https://nhttac.acf.hhs.gov/soar/eguide/stop/adverse_childhood_experiences https://nhttac.acf.hhs.gov/soar/eguide/stop/adverse_childhoo... Oh, and ACE's tend to go up with lower SES: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6872440/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6872440/ Finally please don't elevate eugenics by using the word "unfashionable" when its not only deeply disproven but also has a horrific legacy as the primarily stated justification for some of the world's worst atrocities. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-a...

pcthrowaway 3y ago
[flagged]
- imtringued 3y ago
  Variance in human ability is smaller than variance in income. Productivity does not explain income in capitalist economies. Instead, most of the changes in income are explained by differences in hierarchy. You might say that more able individuals are more likely to be higher up in the hierarchy, but being higher up doesn't require an increase in ability proportional with the increase in income. You only need to be 1% better than the next guy to win the competition, leading small differences in ability to result in large differences in income. Using genetics to explain the fairness of capitalism is a pretty common lie we tell ourselves to make us feel superior over poor people.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    The majority of income differences comes from your skill. A doctor earn much more than a cashier due to having a more valuable skill, and that span makes up the bulk of gini coefficient. Ultra wealth can't be explained with skill difference, no, but that isn't very relevant to this discussion. You can get a ton of money just through skill alone, doctors, programmers, lawyers etc aren't poor by any stretch.
    - spamizbad 3y ago
      > The majority of income differences comes from your skill. A doctor earn much more than a cashier due to having a more valuable skill, and that span makes up the bulk of gini coefficient. Training certainly big plays a role, but the majority of a doctor's income, at least in the United States, comes from the fact that they're part of a labor cartel which artificially limits the number of doctors. No such cartel exists for cashiers. It's why even a mediocre doctor in the United States can make significantly more there than anywhere else in the world despite receiving equivalent training.
      - em500 3y ago
        > It's why even a mediocre doctor in the United States can make significantly more there than anywhere else in the world despite receiving equivalent training. A mediocre developer or hairdresser in the United States also makes significantly more there than anywhere else in the world despite receiving equivalent training. That doesn't require any labor cartel.
    - harimau777 3y ago
      I think that oversimplifies things. Even a very skilled teacher or therapist is unlikely to make as much as an average skilled doctor, programmer, or (maybe?) lawyer.
  - pcthrowaway 3y ago
    > Using genetics to explain the fairness of capitalism No one was doing this. I was pointing out the unfairness of capitalism. The idea that some people are genetically or developmentally less predisposed to skills that will give them a comfortable income is an argument for the unfairness of capitalism, because I haven't heard a convincing argument that this predisposition makes them less deserving of a comfortable life. If anything the flip-side of this (arguing that humans are pretty close in ability and variations in earning are more about circumstance) is really more aligned with the pro-capitalist narrative that everyone has opportunity, and lack of success is usually due to not seizing it.
- FredPret 3y ago
  It’s not capitalistic per se, it’s economic in general. Communists say things like “from each according to their abilities…” which acknowledges differences in cognition
EnigmaFlare 3y ago
[flagged]
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  Selective breeding applied to humans has been tried, eg the line bred https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain#Ancestry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain#Ancestry (personally I suspect we are the highly bred cooperative variant and the wild-type hasn't been a significant part of the population since [tens of?] thousands of years ago)
  - saargrin 3y ago
    that is absolutely not what selective breeding is none of the habsurgs spouses have been selected for any of their traits
    - 082349872349872 3y ago
      > none of the habsurgs spouses have been selected for any of their traits Why would you think that? (rot13: gurl jrer nyy fryrpgrq, sbe gurve crqvterr) Why else would XVII aristocracy have been so concerned with their family lines? (as late as the XX, we can find fictional characters referring to Burke's Peerage* as "the stud book". I rather doubt that usage arises just because both were to use abbreviations and black type.) * back in print! I guess the XXI is bound and determined, not only to repeat the mistakes of the XX, but also those of the XIX.
      - sickofparadox 3y ago
        Most noble marriages in Europe were done for political reasons. Why marry for love (or genetic traits) when you can marry to inherit the Duchess of Burgundy's land?
        082349872349872 3y ago
        Exactly: they thought that holding land over several generations was indicative of good "blood" (what we would call genetic traits). Just because they turned out to be in error about the value of their selections doesn't mean they hadn't been selectively breeding. (an example in cattle: we had local bulls who had been bred for conformation for a long time, and luckily the breeders in the US instead were breeding for "liters of milk produced by the bulls' daughters", so now many [most?] locals inseminate with straws from the US lines)

pcthrowaway 3y ago

[flagged]

imtringued 3y ago
Variance in human ability is smaller than variance in income. Productivity does not explain income in capitalist economies. Instead, most of the changes in income are explained by differences in hierarchy. You might say that more able individuals are more likely to be higher up in the hierarchy, but being higher up doesn't require an increase in ability proportional with the increase in income. You only need to be 1% better than the next guy to win the competition, leading small differences in ability to result in large differences in income. Using genetics to explain the fairness of capitalism is a pretty common lie we tell ourselves to make us feel superior over poor people.
- Jensson 3y ago
  The majority of income differences comes from your skill. A doctor earn much more than a cashier due to having a more valuable skill, and that span makes up the bulk of gini coefficient. Ultra wealth can't be explained with skill difference, no, but that isn't very relevant to this discussion. You can get a ton of money just through skill alone, doctors, programmers, lawyers etc aren't poor by any stretch.
  - spamizbad 3y ago
    > The majority of income differences comes from your skill. A doctor earn much more than a cashier due to having a more valuable skill, and that span makes up the bulk of gini coefficient. Training certainly big plays a role, but the majority of a doctor's income, at least in the United States, comes from the fact that they're part of a labor cartel which artificially limits the number of doctors. No such cartel exists for cashiers. It's why even a mediocre doctor in the United States can make significantly more there than anywhere else in the world despite receiving equivalent training.
    - em500 3y ago
      > It's why even a mediocre doctor in the United States can make significantly more there than anywhere else in the world despite receiving equivalent training. A mediocre developer or hairdresser in the United States also makes significantly more there than anywhere else in the world despite receiving equivalent training. That doesn't require any labor cartel.
  - harimau777 3y ago
    I think that oversimplifies things. Even a very skilled teacher or therapist is unlikely to make as much as an average skilled doctor, programmer, or (maybe?) lawyer.
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  > Using genetics to explain the fairness of capitalism No one was doing this. I was pointing out the unfairness of capitalism. The idea that some people are genetically or developmentally less predisposed to skills that will give them a comfortable income is an argument for the unfairness of capitalism, because I haven't heard a convincing argument that this predisposition makes them less deserving of a comfortable life. If anything the flip-side of this (arguing that humans are pretty close in ability and variations in earning are more about circumstance) is really more aligned with the pro-capitalist narrative that everyone has opportunity, and lack of success is usually due to not seizing it.
FredPret 3y ago
It’s not capitalistic per se, it’s economic in general. Communists say things like “from each according to their abilities…” which acknowledges differences in cognition

EnigmaFlare 3y ago

[flagged]

082349872349872 3y ago
Selective breeding applied to humans has been tried, eg the line bred https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain#Ancestry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain#Ancestry (personally I suspect we are the highly bred cooperative variant and the wild-type hasn't been a significant part of the population since [tens of?] thousands of years ago)
- saargrin 3y ago
  that is absolutely not what selective breeding is none of the habsurgs spouses have been selected for any of their traits
  - 082349872349872 3y ago
    > none of the habsurgs spouses have been selected for any of their traits Why would you think that? (rot13: gurl jrer nyy fryrpgrq, sbe gurve crqvterr) Why else would XVII aristocracy have been so concerned with their family lines? (as late as the XX, we can find fictional characters referring to Burke's Peerage* as "the stud book". I rather doubt that usage arises just because both were to use abbreviations and black type.) * back in print! I guess the XXI is bound and determined, not only to repeat the mistakes of the XX, but also those of the XIX.
    - sickofparadox 3y ago
      Most noble marriages in Europe were done for political reasons. Why marry for love (or genetic traits) when you can marry to inherit the Duchess of Burgundy's land?
      - 082349872349872 3y ago
        Exactly: they thought that holding land over several generations was indicative of good "blood" (what we would call genetic traits). Just because they turned out to be in error about the value of their selections doesn't mean they hadn't been selectively breeding. (an example in cattle: we had local bulls who had been bred for conformation for a long time, and luckily the breeders in the US instead were breeding for "liters of milk produced by the bulls' daughters", so now many [most?] locals inseminate with straws from the US lines)