4 ms·

I normally really like you and upvote your comments as thoughtful, but in this case I really have to disagree. Eugenics arguments are deeply flawed. They are ba

by drostie 12y ago

I normally really like you and upvote your comments as thoughtful, but in this case I really have to disagree. Eugenics arguments are deeply flawed. They are based on an assumption that the nature-vs-nurture debate is decided firmly in the nature direction, and that assumption is wrong. "[A] point-of-view is worth 80 IQ points. If we're born in 10,000 BC with the IQ of Leonardo [da Vinci]... not a lot is gonna happen. Because it's not a question of being smart; we--we aren't a very smart species. We can accumulate knowledge, and that helps, but most traditional societies have accumulated a lot of knowledge. The things that make big changes are changes in our context, like the invention of reading and writing, the invention of modern science four hundred years ago. Those completely changed the way we look at the world." [1] People who are smarter individually are generally not smarter because they had smart genes, but because they've practiced more. I mean, I think talent exists, sure, but I do not think you can distinguish easily between innate talent that is somehow biological versus learned talent acquired by practice which has since been totally hidden from view (a childhood hobby of drawing, for example). Smart parents have smarter kids because they practice them more in thinking in smart ways. It occurs to me rereading your comment that you don't outright say genetic differences -- but it seems to be a present subtext. I guess this issue has hit home for me since a long time ago: it's a private peeve of mine, when people say that adopted kids are "not really your" kids. I've heard several variations of those words and each time it bugs me because of course they are your kids. I have two adopted siblings, and two biological siblings, and because we are closer in age and went to similar schools, I am much more like my adopted siblings than my biological siblings. Of course I am; we did the same things as children. It's not that genetics has nothing to say on any matter, but that its influence on your present state is much smaller than you'd think. Evolution happens over much longer time-scales and represents a slight force in an extremely noisy environment, something like a random walk with a slightly biased coin. Even if someone had a genetic predisposition to smartness, this might be based on a 'chord' of genes which need to work together, highly unlikely to be inheritable. Over the next two hundred years we don't need to watch a 'reproductive differential'; we need to watch an 'education differential' and a 'cultural differential'. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXoSK4tLxK8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXoSK4tLxK8

josho 12y ago
If you are born poor in America the statistics show that you will stay poor. Despite the belief that there is mobility between classes in the US, that is largely decreasing. Thanks to cutbacks on public schools, a regressive tax system, etc the upward mobility in the US has been steadily decreasing. The parent's point has nothing to do with genes, but rather their hypothesis is that the poor as a % of population in the US will grow. While the educated white collar demographic will decrease.
- drostie 12y ago
  I tried to mention that, but he did explicitly say "eugenics" and it wasn't 100% clear that it was metaphorical.
  - rosser 12y ago
    No, he said economic inequality, healthcare and education policy, social immobility, and parent-unfriendly corporate structures have a net "anti-eugenic" effect, which you chose to interpret as an argument for eugenics.
    - drostie 12y ago
      Is it unreasonable for me to interpret someone who is against "anti-eugenic" effects to be for eugenic effects when they start their comments with "we need people like her to reproduce"...? I should clarify: when I say "for eugenic effects" I mean "in support of the general ideas underlying eugenics, even if opposed to eugenic policies." I'm saying above that both eugenics and his "anti-eugenic effects" are based on a flawed idea, one which michaelochurch (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to still endorse regardless of whether he is for or against eugenic policies.
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  There is also less mobility due to increased taxes and regulations. What do you think would happen if we had all of the regulations and taxes people here on HN wanted in place? Small businesses would go under, it would be increasingly difficult to start a business because of the regulations in place and the only entities left would be large corporations and the government. I guess this is the end goal? you can still succeed if you are poor. Poor many times comes along with a mindset that will prevent you from succeeding. I grew up with little to no money and built a business from scratch, which can now support my family. Many people I know are still poor. I've tried to help them, but they just don't want to listen. This used to be the American Dream, but now I just hear complaining by people that are putting little to no effort into bettering themselves. There are tons of jobs out there and houses are at an all-time low, yet many still complain bout both.

by drostie 12y ago

josho 12y ago

If you are born poor in America the statistics show that you will stay poor. Despite the belief that there is mobility between classes in the US, that is largely decreasing. Thanks to cutbacks on public schools, a regressive tax system, etc the upward mobility in the US has been steadily decreasing. The parent's point has nothing to do with genes, but rather their hypothesis is that the poor as a % of population in the US will grow. While the educated white collar demographic will decrease.

drostie 12y ago
I tried to mention that, but he did explicitly say "eugenics" and it wasn't 100% clear that it was metaphorical.
- rosser 12y ago
  No, he said economic inequality, healthcare and education policy, social immobility, and parent-unfriendly corporate structures have a net "anti-eugenic" effect, which you chose to interpret as an argument for eugenics.
  - drostie 12y ago
    Is it unreasonable for me to interpret someone who is against "anti-eugenic" effects to be for eugenic effects when they start their comments with "we need people like her to reproduce"...? I should clarify: when I say "for eugenic effects" I mean "in support of the general ideas underlying eugenics, even if opposed to eugenic policies." I'm saying above that both eugenics and his "anti-eugenic effects" are based on a flawed idea, one which michaelochurch (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to still endorse regardless of whether he is for or against eugenic policies.
paulhauggis 12y ago
There is also less mobility due to increased taxes and regulations. What do you think would happen if we had all of the regulations and taxes people here on HN wanted in place? Small businesses would go under, it would be increasingly difficult to start a business because of the regulations in place and the only entities left would be large corporations and the government. I guess this is the end goal? you can still succeed if you are poor. Poor many times comes along with a mindset that will prevent you from succeeding. I grew up with little to no money and built a business from scratch, which can now support my family. Many people I know are still poor. I've tried to help them, but they just don't want to listen. This used to be the American Dream, but now I just hear complaining by people that are putting little to no effort into bettering themselves. There are tons of jobs out there and houses are at an all-time low, yet many still complain bout both.