4 ms·

Suppose genetics and/or intelligence did have a large influence on success. In what observable ways would the world be different?

pron 11y ago
Why, power would then be concentrated in the hands of those who display pertinent genetic "superiority"! Since we find little pertinent genetic differences between populations and huge variations in concentrations of power, we learn that power is not (mostly) a consequence of genetics. That is the only scientific way to interpret the facts[1]. Some people, however, do the unscientific thing of deducing backwards: they pre-suppose "innate" superiority, and then project backwards from power to superiority. Not only does this contradict scientific findings, it is a very familiar psychological phenomenon, as people who do that invariably include themselves among those they consider innately superior. The effort to ascribe power to innate properties is another well known, well studied sociological/socio-psychological phenomenon[2], whereby seats of power do not want to yield any, and therefore claim an unchanging "nature" (against all observations). [1]: Even if the most, how shall we put this -- nature oriented -- of studies is to be believed, no finding of innate ability has ever found effect sizes within orders of magnitude close to power distribution observed in society. If you then try to claim that the function correlating power to innate ability is super-linear, every small variation would be so magnified, and taking into account that in-group variance is larger than inter-group variance, you'll see a people-to-power function that behaves almost like white noise -- also not what we see. The only way to explain the observed power distribution is with local effects whereby power breeds power in its immediate vicinity, and dampens it at greater distances. Social interaction is by far the most likely explanation of the observations. [2]: there are experiments that create artificial "racism", or ingroup/outgroup differences in children and observe this.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Wait, I'm confused. There are genetically different subpopulations (e.g., Asian Americans, African Americans) which have large disparities in "power" [1]. Remember, I asked you how the world would be different if theories you disagree with were true, not the same. If a theory correctly predicts the world, that's evidence in favor of it. [1] You've claimed in the past that various racial groups - i.e. genetically similar groups - have different levels of power. I'm just taking your claims as given without actually having a coherent definition of "power" - it's more or less moot to this question.
  - pron 11y ago
    That's exactly what I said. The world would be radically different. The average inter-race genetic difference in pertinent qualities (say intelligence, body strength etc) is positively tiny compared to intra-group variance[1]. Those "genetically different subpopulations" are not that genetically different in any significant way in any quality that we would presume to matter. Unless skin color directly causes the power disparity (which, of course, it does because of racism) there is nothing else to explain the difference. If genetics were a very central cause of power difference, you would not see such severe power differences among groups. There is absolutely nothing in the observations to even suggest genetics differences could be a meaningful contributor to power differences among groups, especially when you consider history. For example, the Arab culture was for centuries much superior to the European culture. Has there been some genetic catastrophe in the Arab world? European power superiority is a very recent change (roughly 600-500 years). That power was gained very quickly -- in the course of a few decades between 1450-1520[2] -- in what is known as the European miracle. Genetics don't behave like that. If we were having this discussion as recently as 700 years ago, I guess you would naturally assume that Europeans have some inborn defect that makes them so inferior. Also, we do not see any innate ability difference that in a measure that is even close to the levels of power disparity. No one is a hundred times smarter or stronger or faster than the average population. Yet you see both individuals and localized groups (at almost any size) that are easily a hundred (or a thousand) times more powerful than other individuals or localized groups. You cannot explain that without treating social forces as the leading cause. Also, there is no need to write power in quotes. When discussing physics you don't write energy or force or charge in quotes, right? No need to disrespect other serious disciplines. Power is a well-established, well-accepted concept -- even if for some reason you've convinced yourself it isn't -- so show just an inkling of respect for other researchers. [1]: Reading my previous comment again, I wrote exactly that. Are you intentionally trying not to understand again? Or are you just assuming there are large genetic differences because people look different? [2]: In those few decades, the Byzantine empire fell (after a long decline), Europe started enjoying a remarkable recovery after the Black Death epidemic that had peaked a hundred years prior, America was discovered, print invented, and Christianity fractured. While at the same time, the Ottomans rejected print (for religious reasons).
Uhhrrr 11y ago
Interesting question. Would this mean that more genetically homogeneous countries like Japan and Iceland would have lower GINI coefficients?
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  All else held equal, probably yes. Unfortunately all else is NOT held equal - genetic homogeneity is inversely correlated with population, and more people usually means more inequality.
  - Uhhrrr 11y ago
    Yeah, and now that I think about it, culture/techlevel is going to cause huge variance in GINI anyway.

pron 11y ago

Why, power would then be concentrated in the hands of those who display pertinent genetic "superiority"! Since we find little pertinent genetic differences between populations and huge variations in concentrations of power, we learn that power is not (mostly) a consequence of genetics. That is the only scientific way to interpret the facts[1]. Some people, however, do the unscientific thing of deducing backwards: they pre-suppose "innate" superiority, and then project backwards from power to superiority. Not only does this contradict scientific findings, it is a very familiar psychological phenomenon, as people who do that invariably include themselves among those they consider innately superior. The effort to ascribe power to innate properties is another well known, well studied sociological/socio-psychological phenomenon[2], whereby seats of power do not want to yield any, and therefore claim an unchanging "nature" (against all observations). [1]: Even if the most, how shall we put this -- nature oriented -- of studies is to be believed, no finding of innate ability has ever found effect sizes within orders of magnitude close to power distribution observed in society. If you then try to claim that the function correlating power to innate ability is super-linear, every small variation would be so magnified, and taking into account that in-group variance is larger than inter-group variance, you'll see a people-to-power function that behaves almost like white noise -- also not what we see. The only way to explain the observed power distribution is with local effects whereby power breeds power in its immediate vicinity, and dampens it at greater distances. Social interaction is by far the most likely explanation of the observations. [2]: there are experiments that create artificial "racism", or ingroup/outgroup differences in children and observe this.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Wait, I'm confused. There are genetically different subpopulations (e.g., Asian Americans, African Americans) which have large disparities in "power" [1]. Remember, I asked you how the world would be different if theories you disagree with were true, not the same. If a theory correctly predicts the world, that's evidence in favor of it. [1] You've claimed in the past that various racial groups - i.e. genetically similar groups - have different levels of power. I'm just taking your claims as given without actually having a coherent definition of "power" - it's more or less moot to this question.
- pron 11y ago
  That's exactly what I said. The world would be radically different. The average inter-race genetic difference in pertinent qualities (say intelligence, body strength etc) is positively tiny compared to intra-group variance[1]. Those "genetically different subpopulations" are not that genetically different in any significant way in any quality that we would presume to matter. Unless skin color directly causes the power disparity (which, of course, it does because of racism) there is nothing else to explain the difference. If genetics were a very central cause of power difference, you would not see such severe power differences among groups. There is absolutely nothing in the observations to even suggest genetics differences could be a meaningful contributor to power differences among groups, especially when you consider history. For example, the Arab culture was for centuries much superior to the European culture. Has there been some genetic catastrophe in the Arab world? European power superiority is a very recent change (roughly 600-500 years). That power was gained very quickly -- in the course of a few decades between 1450-1520[2] -- in what is known as the European miracle. Genetics don't behave like that. If we were having this discussion as recently as 700 years ago, I guess you would naturally assume that Europeans have some inborn defect that makes them so inferior. Also, we do not see any innate ability difference that in a measure that is even close to the levels of power disparity. No one is a hundred times smarter or stronger or faster than the average population. Yet you see both individuals and localized groups (at almost any size) that are easily a hundred (or a thousand) times more powerful than other individuals or localized groups. You cannot explain that without treating social forces as the leading cause. Also, there is no need to write power in quotes. When discussing physics you don't write energy or force or charge in quotes, right? No need to disrespect other serious disciplines. Power is a well-established, well-accepted concept -- even if for some reason you've convinced yourself it isn't -- so show just an inkling of respect for other researchers. [1]: Reading my previous comment again, I wrote exactly that. Are you intentionally trying not to understand again? Or are you just assuming there are large genetic differences because people look different? [2]: In those few decades, the Byzantine empire fell (after a long decline), Europe started enjoying a remarkable recovery after the Black Death epidemic that had peaked a hundred years prior, America was discovered, print invented, and Christianity fractured. While at the same time, the Ottomans rejected print (for religious reasons).

Uhhrrr 11y ago

Interesting question. Would this mean that more genetically homogeneous countries like Japan and Iceland would have lower GINI coefficients?

yummyfajitas 11y ago
All else held equal, probably yes. Unfortunately all else is NOT held equal - genetic homogeneity is inversely correlated with population, and more people usually means more inequality.
- Uhhrrr 11y ago
  Yeah, and now that I think about it, culture/techlevel is going to cause huge variance in GINI anyway.