4 ms·

"Such competence is potentially heritable and is reinforced by the human tendency to mate with partners of similar traits and ability." I think this raises a v

"Such competence is potentially heritable and is reinforced by the human tendency to mate with partners of similar traits and ability." I think this raises a very important question: How far are we willing to go to pursue equality in the modern age? It seems that -- generally -- there is an inevitable tendency of humans to mate with someone of similar "stature" or "capacity". Of course, like any generalization, there are exceptions, but it certainly seems that we each possess a certain amount of "personal capital" which determines our worthiness as a mate. Can we really prevent the good from mating with the good, and the bad from getting stuck with the bad, generally? Is that even a goal worth pursuing? Such presumption seems to be in conflict with nature itself. It's almost amusing how the modern era is so committed to the science of evolution and yet works so hard to derationalize it!

hrktb 13y ago
The main point of equality it to allow a brilliant child of a not so brilliant parents to bring as much value to society as he can. If a very bright kid is born in a farmer's family, we want he/she to become a top member of the society and work on the hard to solve problems, and not become a KFC store manager. Equality of chance and fluidity is as important to society as it is to individuals. Of course there is a price to pay, for this to be possible it also means that this kid's education will be as far as possible removed from his parents world of view and opinions, and be set under society's values and management, which would be detrimental if the parents could have actually given a better education. But I think it's something we should strive for in balanced proportions.
- lepukowsky 13y ago
  Do you feel this way from a societal, "consequentialist" point of view, meaning that doing such would necessarily maximize the quality of society on the whole? If so, what if there is an opportunity cost by which such a moral choice stimies your next cancer cure or breakthrough in clean energy? Or perhaps, instead, do you feel that the overall effect on society is not as important as the individual's "right" to maximize his or her own opportunity? And if so, what about some other individual's right to choose the best available mate? Or is there a third way? Thank you for the response.
  - ilaksh 13y ago
    Although the authors of the article leave a bit of room for attributing a lack of upward mobility to circumstantial disadvantage, you seem to be operating from an almost eugenicist point-of-view with the assumption that position is almost entirely based on inherited ability. Those studies don't prove anything but I believe that culture and circumstance play a large part in determining mobility. The funny thing is that in ten or twenty years when artificial super-intelligence arrives, everyone, even rich intellectuals, will be, relatively speaking, mentally challenged, compared to the AIs. Please review this video to get a good idea of what I am talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Juh7Xh_70 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Juh7Xh_70 (Unless we augment our intelligence with implanted technology of some sort.)
    - lepukowsky 13y ago
      I at no point advocated eugenics and I actually find that a bit insulting. I quoted the article directly which stated (as I quote again for the space-cadets among us): "Such competence is potentially heritable and is reinforced by the human tendency to mate with partners of similar traits and ability." I simply alluded to (and then later asked) my respondent to what extent he or she is willing to defend equality over an individual's rights. Please do not misrepresent my words. Maybe you should try staying on topic before pointing me to some far-off, yet to be encountered political dilemma? I also pointed out that despite our modern acceptance of evolution, the “enlightened” liberal-democratic west is in absolute cognitive dissonance when it comes to reconciling such theories with the various inequalities that arise between peoples. Perhaps you can enlighten us all with your futuristic wizardry? I'm betting not...
    - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
      Oh boy, a neo-racist versus a Singulatarian. Fight, fight, fight, fight! (Admittedly, I've seen more evidence in favor of AI than in favor of eugenic/dysgenic hypotheses of social inequality.)
- swombat 13y ago
  > The main point of equality it to allow a brilliant child of a not so brilliant parents to bring as much value to society as he can. If a very bright kid is born in a farmer's family, we want he/she to become a top member of the society and work on the hard to solve problems, and not become a KFC store manager. As pointed out elsewhere, the problem with that is education. The school system provides a very poor excuse for "education", and if the parents don't supplement that (as well-educated parents likely will), that naturally hampers the bright-child-in-a-poor-family example. There are exceptions of course, there will always be - but to solve the problem at a larger scale, what must be solved is the education problem. At the moment, 90+% of "education" must still be provided by the parents. Educated people understand that the school system is a parody of education, and so tend to compensate for that. But how can uneducated people understand that and compensate for it?
  - hrktb 13y ago
    I agree what is taught in school is very poor and lacking. I hope he current system is a least a gateway for most people: once you start understanding that you need more education, you can look for yourself how to get this education. Then comes to play libraries, grants, online resources etc. Not everyone has a chance to access all the resources he/she needs, but at least middle class and slighty lower classes should have a chance. To be clear, there will always be a gap between child with clever/well educated parents and other childs, and I don't think we should lower the top level. I just think we need a eay to push people who might be stuck at the bottom level while they could go much higher.
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
No, we are not going to reconfigure civilization to cater to your fantasies of genetic superiority. Stop trying.
- lepukowsky 13y ago
  No, I'm not going to let you misinterpret my argument, keep trying. I'm quoting the article which is suggesting that people breed with the best mate they can, inevitably creating inequality. I am asking how we, as a modern society, reconcile this with the goal of equality. It's really a simple question, do you personally think the nature of mate-choosing could lead to inequality over time? Because I do, and I don't think we have any duty as a society to "regulate" how we choose mates to further the goal of equality. That is not to say I am against all attempts an promoting equality, but this specifically is a line in the sand for me (both aesthetically and morally) and I am curious how others feel. The article is practically aghast that such a facet of our nature could cause inequality (among all the other innumerable mutations we incur) and I find it laughable. If you read The Republic by Plato the section on the Kalipolis does a great job of demonstrating why an attempt at perfect equality is so ridiculous: Imagine what would happen to meritocracy if we didn't value with whom we mated and perhaps you will finally get it. Edit-It's a question of cultural inequality, not genetic, in my mind.
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    >It's really a simple question, do you personally think the nature of mate-choosing could lead to inequality over time? Across deep time? No. People don't copy their parents' values or lifestyles over time, so they often wind up breeding differently than their parents did, so genetic recombination occurs and unusual genes flow back into the main population.
    - lepukowsky 13y ago
      I'm not talking about genes. I'm talking about the passing of culture, values, etc... It seems pretty obvious to me that good habits produce more good habits, and bad habits produce more bad habits among family lineage, but no one seems even willing to admit that!
guard-of-terra 13y ago
Well, nobody is happy with lawyers. Nobody is happy with how 'elite' run their countries. They're failing whatever they usurped for some time now, so yes, I can see us wanting some changes towards equality.
JoeAltmaier 13y ago
I don't see evidence of this supposed tendency at all. My brothers married women from India, the Philippines. I married a woman from Italy. Why? The exotic nature of 'foreign' women has been lauded in song and literature forever. This flies in the face of the 'tendency to mate with partners of similar traits and ability"

hrktb 13y ago

The main point of equality it to allow a brilliant child of a not so brilliant parents to bring as much value to society as he can. If a very bright kid is born in a farmer's family, we want he/she to become a top member of the society and work on the hard to solve problems, and not become a KFC store manager. Equality of chance and fluidity is as important to society as it is to individuals. Of course there is a price to pay, for this to be possible it also means that this kid's education will be as far as possible removed from his parents world of view and opinions, and be set under society's values and management, which would be detrimental if the parents could have actually given a better education. But I think it's something we should strive for in balanced proportions.

lepukowsky 13y ago
Do you feel this way from a societal, "consequentialist" point of view, meaning that doing such would necessarily maximize the quality of society on the whole? If so, what if there is an opportunity cost by which such a moral choice stimies your next cancer cure or breakthrough in clean energy? Or perhaps, instead, do you feel that the overall effect on society is not as important as the individual's "right" to maximize his or her own opportunity? And if so, what about some other individual's right to choose the best available mate? Or is there a third way? Thank you for the response.
- ilaksh 13y ago
  Although the authors of the article leave a bit of room for attributing a lack of upward mobility to circumstantial disadvantage, you seem to be operating from an almost eugenicist point-of-view with the assumption that position is almost entirely based on inherited ability. Those studies don't prove anything but I believe that culture and circumstance play a large part in determining mobility. The funny thing is that in ten or twenty years when artificial super-intelligence arrives, everyone, even rich intellectuals, will be, relatively speaking, mentally challenged, compared to the AIs. Please review this video to get a good idea of what I am talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Juh7Xh_70 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Juh7Xh_70 (Unless we augment our intelligence with implanted technology of some sort.)
  - lepukowsky 13y ago
    I at no point advocated eugenics and I actually find that a bit insulting. I quoted the article directly which stated (as I quote again for the space-cadets among us): "Such competence is potentially heritable and is reinforced by the human tendency to mate with partners of similar traits and ability." I simply alluded to (and then later asked) my respondent to what extent he or she is willing to defend equality over an individual's rights. Please do not misrepresent my words. Maybe you should try staying on topic before pointing me to some far-off, yet to be encountered political dilemma? I also pointed out that despite our modern acceptance of evolution, the “enlightened” liberal-democratic west is in absolute cognitive dissonance when it comes to reconciling such theories with the various inequalities that arise between peoples. Perhaps you can enlighten us all with your futuristic wizardry? I'm betting not...
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    Oh boy, a neo-racist versus a Singulatarian. Fight, fight, fight, fight! (Admittedly, I've seen more evidence in favor of AI than in favor of eugenic/dysgenic hypotheses of social inequality.)
swombat 13y ago
> The main point of equality it to allow a brilliant child of a not so brilliant parents to bring as much value to society as he can. If a very bright kid is born in a farmer's family, we want he/she to become a top member of the society and work on the hard to solve problems, and not become a KFC store manager. As pointed out elsewhere, the problem with that is education. The school system provides a very poor excuse for "education", and if the parents don't supplement that (as well-educated parents likely will), that naturally hampers the bright-child-in-a-poor-family example. There are exceptions of course, there will always be - but to solve the problem at a larger scale, what must be solved is the education problem. At the moment, 90+% of "education" must still be provided by the parents. Educated people understand that the school system is a parody of education, and so tend to compensate for that. But how can uneducated people understand that and compensate for it?
- hrktb 13y ago
  I agree what is taught in school is very poor and lacking. I hope he current system is a least a gateway for most people: once you start understanding that you need more education, you can look for yourself how to get this education. Then comes to play libraries, grants, online resources etc. Not everyone has a chance to access all the resources he/she needs, but at least middle class and slighty lower classes should have a chance. To be clear, there will always be a gap between child with clever/well educated parents and other childs, and I don't think we should lower the top level. I just think we need a eay to push people who might be stuck at the bottom level while they could go much higher.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

No, we are not going to reconfigure civilization to cater to your fantasies of genetic superiority. Stop trying.

lepukowsky 13y ago
No, I'm not going to let you misinterpret my argument, keep trying. I'm quoting the article which is suggesting that people breed with the best mate they can, inevitably creating inequality. I am asking how we, as a modern society, reconcile this with the goal of equality. It's really a simple question, do you personally think the nature of mate-choosing could lead to inequality over time? Because I do, and I don't think we have any duty as a society to "regulate" how we choose mates to further the goal of equality. That is not to say I am against all attempts an promoting equality, but this specifically is a line in the sand for me (both aesthetically and morally) and I am curious how others feel. The article is practically aghast that such a facet of our nature could cause inequality (among all the other innumerable mutations we incur) and I find it laughable. If you read The Republic by Plato the section on the Kalipolis does a great job of demonstrating why an attempt at perfect equality is so ridiculous: Imagine what would happen to meritocracy if we didn't value with whom we mated and perhaps you will finally get it. Edit-It's a question of cultural inequality, not genetic, in my mind.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  >It's really a simple question, do you personally think the nature of mate-choosing could lead to inequality over time? Across deep time? No. People don't copy their parents' values or lifestyles over time, so they often wind up breeding differently than their parents did, so genetic recombination occurs and unusual genes flow back into the main population.
  - lepukowsky 13y ago
    I'm not talking about genes. I'm talking about the passing of culture, values, etc... It seems pretty obvious to me that good habits produce more good habits, and bad habits produce more bad habits among family lineage, but no one seems even willing to admit that!

guard-of-terra 13y ago

Well, nobody is happy with lawyers. Nobody is happy with how 'elite' run their countries. They're failing whatever they usurped for some time now, so yes, I can see us wanting some changes towards equality.

JoeAltmaier 13y ago

I don't see evidence of this supposed tendency at all. My brothers married women from India, the Philippines. I married a woman from Italy. Why? The exotic nature of 'foreign' women has been lauded in song and literature forever. This flies in the face of the 'tendency to mate with partners of similar traits and ability"