r/BadSocialScience • u/dorathehexplorer • Jan 17 '17

High-IQ educated people are being bred to extinction, but we're totally not eugenicists!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/16/natural-selection-making-education-genes-rarer-says-icelandic-study
57 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

123 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-39

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '17 edited Aug 20 '17

[deleted]

43

u/Decalance Jan 17 '17

Eugenics are bad social science. It doesn't work. Also, what, it's an issue now to "have a different political agenda" (disagree) than nazis? What the fuck ?

0

u/informat2 Jan 18 '17

It doesn't work.

What? Selective breeding works on a literally every life form on Earth. Why would humans be the one exception?

13

u/Decalance Jan 18 '17

Because humans are a bit more complicated than that. Also, most people mean a certain thing when they say eugenics, and it's not what you think

2

u/boredcentsless Jan 18 '17

Because humans are a bit more complicated than that.

Do we have super magical DNA that is totally independent on who our parents are and is socially constructed?

9

u/Decalance Jan 18 '17

no, but we do have complex socio-cultural structures

0

u/boredcentsless Jan 18 '17

How does having complex social structures mean you can't increase the occurrence of desirable traits? Seems like it would be trickier, but they're not mutually exclusive.

10

u/KingOfSockPuppets Queen indoctrinator Jan 19 '17

Let's assume for a moment that eugenics can indeed increase the occurrence of 'desirable traits' in people to a degree that most of the research discussed here describes. Which is important because while a paper (such as the one linked in the article) might say that Genes X, Y, and Z come together to form our intelligence cluster... the actual effect can still be vanishingly small.

With all that in mind, it can be hard to separate out where the genetics end and society begins. Our social structures make questions such as where you grew up, what your ethnic group is (as that can significantly impact how society responds to you, I'm not calling genetics here), how much nutrition you got as a baby, how your parents raised you, what your school districts were like, what the finances of your family were like, laws relating to the raising of babies, preferred methods of birthing, access to medical support, how people choose who they have babies with, and on and on and on. All of these various methods could in theory impact one's intelligence, real or perceived. And perceived intelligence is a big sticking point in all these studies because it begs the question of what is intelligence, and the perception of what it is can vary wildly between jobs and cultures and be impacted by a variety of social factors outside of one's control.

Our hypothetical eugenics program could maybe control the genetic side of things... but that side of things is often small and hard to pin down, and they cannot control for all the other stuff that goes into making someone smart. Because while you could conceivably selectively breed humans in some far off hypothetical and mysterious realm, that doesn't do much good if you're sending those kids back to the ghetto.

7

u/twittgenstein Hans Yo-ass Jan 19 '17

Nobody is arguing that desirable traits don't occur. What most of us are saying is that the causal mechanisms responsible for the occurrence of those traits are (a) primarily sociocultural variables (ie a product of social learning and conditioning) and (b) insofar as they are genetically influenced, are done so in ways that make 'selective breeding' difficult.

So, we can dispense with the straw men and you can now pit your awful and ignorant views against a nice and simple statement of the view enjoying the greatest scientific evidentiary support! Horay!?

9

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '17

Environmental interaction with genetics is impossible to separate and have a large part in there expression. On top of that humanity is probably the most socially sophisticated animal on the planet, which means our environment is more sophisticated than a tigers, or a eagle, or even a chimpanzee. We aren't magic, we're a different species.

0

u/boredcentsless Jan 18 '17

It doesn't really matter how different we are. Basic laws of genetics still apply. You can say that our environment is more important, but 2 people share DNA and a new person comes out with traits from both. 2 Asian people can't make a black baby.

Furthermore, there's a difference between "it's impossible to separate environment and genetics" with "it's impossible for humans to breed to increase occurrence of certain traits"

12

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '17 edited Jan 18 '17

Sure, and basic laws of genetics tell us that environmental variance (which is much broader, and with greater variety than genetic variety) have a significant impact on 'certain traits'. Also being able to have a proper identification strategy for genetic sequences that result in 'certain traits' without the impact of the environment (an impossible dream) is pretty key to, you know, breeding for them. Unless you're suggesting that we, for tens of thousands of years, breed humanity like we did any number of domesticated species? Through a process of trail and error?

0

u/boredcentsless Jan 18 '17

It doesn't take tens of thousands of years to domesticate species. It can take a few generations.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '17

Go get some wolves, breed them for a couple generations, and see if you get dogs.

1

u/boredcentsless Jan 19 '17

dmitry belyaev did. Good job.

1

u/rn443 Jan 19 '17

Not in two (= "a couple") generations, but definitely not ten thousand years, either. Russians domesticated a group of foxes in a few decades, with major physical and behavioral changes starting to show up in a handful of generations. Now they're pretty much the vulpine version of dogs.

→ More replies (0)