The march to Nazism takes another step
Intelligence isn’t genetic. Its determined by large set of environmental factors as well as societal ones
It’s genetic and environmental (I’d argue that societal is a subset of environment - the society you live in is part of your environment).
IQ is far from a perfect measure for intelligence, but it has a high degree of inheritability - up to 80%.
However
As soon as malnutrition comes into play, IQ is automatically severely diminished. Add in all the other environmental factors too, and - it turns out we do have a lot more we can do to increase peoples intelligence, before resorting to eugenics.
I mean, the validity of IQ tests in general should be questioned when the largest variability in scoring is if you’ve previously studied for an IQ test followed by what language you speak.
Philosophically I don’t really think there’s a uniform agreement on what exactly defines general intellect, or if that general intellect even matters considering were a species that relies on specialization.
As far as heritability, I imagine that would be a horribly difficult topic to actually get enough research to rule out variables like socioeconomics and cultural differences. I mean I doubt there’s that many twin studies to establish the efficacy any particular theory.
As I recall, studying for an IQ test is able to improve your result by around 7%. That’s honestly a pretty impressively low %, indicates to me some level of validity just based on that. What other variables are considered? And can you link me to the language thing? When I look up language, I’m just seeing correlation between language proficiency and IQ, which shouldn’t be surprising – I would imagine that people who measure a higher IQ are better at learning languages.
There is great interest in studying IQ, and people do study that quite seriously.
Philosophically I don’t really think there’s a uniform agreement on what exactly defines general intellect
Agreed, and the person you’re replying to said essentially the same thing. IQ itself has correlations with other things, and that alone makes it interesting.
This article does a pretty decent job pointing out some of the variabilities that make IQ test unreliable. Tbh I think the concept of IQ is fruit from the poisoned tree. There are so many people that stake their positions and identities on the efficacy of IQ that the whole data pool is kinda poisoned. For every study that makes a claim, there are other studies rebutting it.
And can you link me to the language thing? When I look up language, I’m just seeing correlation between language proficiency and IQ, which shouldn’t be surprising – I would imagine that people who measure a higher IQ are better at learning languages.
I would have to search for it, i originally read about it when I was in college over a decade ago. Basically the claim was that the vast majority of the tests originate or are interpreted from English or another western language. When certain aspects of the test are interpreted to a different language the sentence structure is modified in a way where it adds an additional barrier for the test taker.
This may be somewhat solved by the different language speakers creating their own test, but that may not overcome the problem due to the need for global standardization, orit may be a barrier to language speakers who’s cultures haven’t invested the time or resources to the idea of IQ to begin with.
Ah, right. Yeah, there are some age-old criticisisms of IQ test like translating into a different language can skew the result, or relying on concepts that are cultural but not obviously cultural (like the way buildings are shaped) can skew the result. I’m not generally interested in comparing IQ results between countries or even for people of differing first language though so these don’t especially concern me so long as I can be sure a study averts the issue.
From the paper you linked:
there exists a gap in what they are believed to measure and what they do
Hard agree. IQ cannot be said to measure intelligence. But for instance, it correlates well with success (level of education (eventually) reached, or $ in a capitalist society) and I’d be surprised to find any major journal publishing a paper which disputes that.
I’m not generally interested in comparing IQ results between countries or even for people of differing first language though so these don’t especially concern me so long as I can be sure a study averts the issue.
My point is the variability between test groups calls into question the reliability of IQ as a concept as a whole. If IQ is an innate measurement of intellect for humans in general, then the reliability of the test shouldn’t be culturally constrained.
for instance, it correlates well with success (level of education (eventually) reached, or $ in a capitalist society) and I’d be surprised to find any major journal publishing a paper which disputes that.
Yes, but I could make the same claim about a plethora of other correlations with more confidence like having wealthy parents.
IQ is not a measurement of human intellect in general. Also, the fact that the test is flawed does not mean it is not useful in some contexts.
Regarding correlation with success, I should have specified that the correlation still exists even when controlling for birth environment.
Wait, do people actually study for IQ tests? Why? Language makes sense, if I tried doing one in German I would fail because I barely speak it at an A2 level, if that.
I reckon general intellect does matter. In a world where your job might not exist in 5 years because lol AI, it’s best to be able to adapt fast. Specialize, yes, but one day your specialization will be useless. Best case scenario, it’s after you’ve retired.
And going back to heritability, there’s definitely some heritability there, but the problem with twin studies is that twins tend to have the same socioeconomic backgrounds too. Still, just malnutrition, environmental pollution, etc, are big enough factors that taking care of those on a nationwide scale (since we’re talking about a particular nation here), would be much more significant than eugenics. Then we get to education - again, this same particular nation has a lot of gaps in the availability of good quality education.
One reason people study for IQ tests is to learn to what extent studying for an IQ test affects the result.
Wait, do people actually study for IQ tests? Why?
The same reason mensa is a thing. People like to toot their own horn.
reckon general intellect does matter. In a world where your job might not exist in 5 years because lol AI, it’s best to be able to adapt fast. Specialize, yes, but one day your specialization will be useless. Best case scenario, it’s after you’ve retired.
To a certain extent yes, but no one can be an expert at everything. There just isn’t enough time, and expertise is really what society rewards people for at the end of the day.
And going back to heritability, there’s definitely some heritability there
I would say that would be incredibly hard to empirically prove due to the problems you mentioned. At best we could speculate that heritability may be an influence, but that influence is vastly overshadowed by environmental factors.
The same reason mensa is a thing. People like to toot their own horn.
Fair enough, I’ve also at one point been 13 and done a bunch of useless online IQ tests. Never studied for them, they seemed like mostly simple pattern recognition and general logic questions, which I’ve never really thought you could even study for.
To a certain extent yes, but no one can be an expert at everything. There just isn’t enough time, and expertise is really what society rewards people for at the end of the day.
Absolutely. But general intellect, as far as I can tell (and maybe my understanding of it is wrong), is what influences your ability to shift to a new field and gain expertise in that. Years alone don’t cut it. In my own field, I’ve seen software engineers who can’t program for shit, let alone make any architectural decisions after a decade - and ones that are pretty competent after 2-3 years. Now imagine you’re 10 years into a career and it starts becoming less and less relevant due to changes in society. If you’re naturally intelligent, you’re both 1) more likely to have learned more from your 10 years than others have, so more valuable for longer, and 2) more likely to be able to switch to an unrelated or semi-related career path and become useful in a shorter amount of time.
Of course it gets more complex than that because general intellect doesn’t span ALL skills. In fact, it’s more like ranges of aptitudes. I have great aptitude for STEM, pretty decent aptitude for languages, and absolutely none for arts. No drawing, no singing, etc. No matter how much practice I get and how much practice I got in my childhood. There’s just skills I won’t learn in 10 years of practice, and skills I pick up rapidly, and it’s been that way since childhood.
Hell, maybe general intellect isn’t a thing after all.
I think IQ in particular unfairly prioritizes understanding of language and logic, over artful skills and, e.g emotional intelligence (which is measured by EQ I guess). It’s a pointless measure. My main point that I wanted to make was that some people are naturally more gifted, and just faster learners, than others. There’s people from good families who have never suffered from malnutrition or emotional abuse and went to good schools, who aren’t all that smart, and people from far worse backgrounds who are geniuses. Something must be contributing to that. If not genetics, then what? At the same time, yes, people from emotionally healthy families with no financial issues, are more likely to be successful in school as well as life in general.
Never studied for them, they seemed like mostly simple pattern recognition and general logic questions, which I’ve never really thought you could even study for.
There are a few different tests that are supposed to clinically measure IQ. Most of them are more complex than pattern recognition and most all of them are administered by some sort of clinician, which can also influence outcomes.
But general intellect, as far as I can tell (and maybe my understanding of it is wrong), is what influences your ability to shift to a new field and gain expertise in that. Years alone don’t cut it. In my own field, I’ve seen software engineers who can’t program for shit, let alone make any architectural decisions after a decade - and ones that are pretty competent after 2-3 years.
I would say that the ability to gain expertise is generally hard to differentiate with the motivation to gain expertise. What we can empirically prove is that time spent practicing a skill is how we gain expertise in most any skill.
In fact, it’s more like ranges of aptitudes. I have great aptitude for STEM, pretty decent aptitude for languages, and absolutely none for arts. No drawing, no singing, etc. No matter how much practice I get and how much practice I got in my childhood.
It could be that you just perceive yourself being at being better at stem because you enjoy practicing the skills required for stem. People generally gain experience faster in skill sets they enjoy or skills they perceive thems to excel at.
There’s just skills I won’t learn in 10 years of practice, and skills I pick up rapidly, and it’s been that way since childhood.
Again, this could be self fulfilling process. If you don’t think you will excel at something you may not fully engage in the process, or even self sabotage the process.
think IQ in particular unfairly prioritizes understanding of language and logic, over artful skills and, e.g emotional intelligence (which is measured by EQ I guess).
I think for this to be true your claim would have to be that emotional intellect is devoid of logic or language…which seems fairly self evidently incorrect.
My main point that I wanted to make was that some people are naturally more gifted, and just faster learners, than others.
Or people are better at learning things they are self motivated to learn about, and that society influences what skills we find valuable or “intellectual”.
In short, what we can empirically prove about intellect is usually environmental in nature, and what we can only theorize about heritability cannot be differentiated from other variabilities that may correlate with that theory.
There’s no evidence it’s generic at all. It’s very difficult to access ‘intelligence’ or make usable data about intelligence. You really can’t test how intelligent people are, most of what we can test with repeatable results is skills, which famously can be improved over time reliably. To the point there’s time estimates on how long it takes to be a skilled person in one ability or another. I work with special needs kids, and let me tell you, you learn real quick working with these kids that there’s close to zero differences between them and their same age peers. People are very similar, and even people you’d consider rather foolish on a lot of metrics interacting with them, can be quite brilliant at what they are interested in and skilled in.
I don’t know about intelligence, but it’s well-known that IQ results are partially heritable genetically. (Yes, even when controlling for environment one is raised in.) Did you actually research this or did you make that up because it sounded nice?
That’s not true at all. No biologist will agree that IQ tests produce usable data that shows anything of the sort, IQ tests are a skills test and the biggest skills it tests are studying for an IQ test and speaking English fluently.
I don’t know if you know this, but Eugenics was bunk science and it’s been shown to be nothing more than academic racism that holds no validity
You’re misinformed about eugenics (with a lower-case e, if you don’t mind). Easily-measurable traits like height and weight are well known to have heritable components, as do diseases. Eugenics is an effective way to prevent genetic diseases. You probably don’t realize that eugenics is a wider subject than the racist and ableist practices of nazis and other ethno-supremacists. You only think eugenics is bad because when people say “eugenics,” what the nazis did is what comes to mind, rather than important and good technologies like IVF and selecting against zygotes with alleles associated with negative traits. (And yes, negative traits and positive traits are both heritable, though I’ll freely admit that what makes a trait positive or negative is subjective.) See this discussion elsewhere in this thread.
I have a hypothesis that there are three camps of people: (1) those who generally get the science and limitations of IQ; (2) those who are racist bigots and use IQ to justify genocide; (3) those who assume that any attempt to measure intelligence is inherently racist and so IQ must be pseudoscience. (2) and (3) both assume that anyone purporting to be in camp (1) must actually be in camp (3)/(2) respectively.
Getting rid of negative traits gets out of control really fast. I would say more than AI.
How does AI factor into this? Also I’m interested to hear your scenario in which voluntarily getting rid of negative traits gets out of control. It’s certainly plausible that we might have some kind of runaway evolution. Still, I think it’s imperative we prevent genetic diseases.
AI is a modern problem, getting rid of negative traits is a potential problem. Getting rid of negative traits incur that something about the person or being is a disorder. That could be schizophrenia or autism, that are more considered like problems, even though these are problems that are at the core of society, not problems with the people themselves. Getting rid of these might seem logical, but they also meddle with what a person is at its core. Now moving on to things that are more accepted by the literature as non deviant genetic ‘traits’ would be homosexuality and transness. What if this defiant and deviant mode of living was to be erased by genetic modification? I’m sure the parents would be proud, but you just got rid of something that is at the core of what that person is. That is against diversity by itself. Genetic modification in the sense of eugenics or getting rid of negative traits is the same as eliminating diversity and difference, which is why Hitler picked at it so much.
I’ll elaborate even more: Arjun Appadurai implies at his “Fear of Small Numbers” that at the core of eliminating difference there is a deep desire for oneness. That those who are different are such small steps away from complete oneness and national identity. That is, I exist in the society which I identify as real, and anything against that is so close to inexistant that I could just wipe them out and be in my happy place. So close to it, but not quite. Something that Appadurai calls the state of “incompleteness”.
It does not seem obvious to me that we should get rid of autism. I don’t know any studies that suggest that people with autism have a lower quality of life. Autism is a form of being different – neurodivergent. There may be disadvantages to being autistic, but there are likely advantages too. That is different from other more severe disorders that are genetic. (Is autism even genetic?)
Similarly, being LGBTQ+ is not a disadvantage in a sane society. In fact, being bisexual is an advantage I would argue. Regardless, it’s not genetic, so why even bring that up?
But there are genetic disorders nearly everyone agrees should be eradicated.
Also I’m interested to hear your scenario in which voluntarily getting rid of negative traits gets out of control.
Read like any sci-fi novel ever…
How about Brave New World off the top of my head? GATTACA as well.
Genetics are only a small fraction of what makes up intelligence. Is far more important as other commenters pointed out to have enough nutrition and the right type of education the right type of social environment.
It’s also known by the MIT that race can be identified on X-rays using AI, and that doesn’t mean much, does it?
I am clueless about what you’re trying to imply. Are you saying that because one heritable thing which has a test for it is unimportant, that means all heritable things that can be measured are unimportant? I think that is what you’re saying.
The importance of IQ isn’t even what I was arguing over; I was just rebutting top-level comment that IQ is heritable. (I am aware they referred to intelligence, not IQ; but thread is about IQ.)
If there is no proper definition for what IQ is, it’s just another fallacy for normative thought. I mean by this that going through classical logic seamlessly does not incur into intelligence, even though it might incur into intellectual fitness. And then it’s all again why we have a certain model of thought of what is considered normal. This needs to exist if we are to assert “Intellectual Quality”.
Now, if we assert what is “normal” we also have to assert what is a “disorder” or “deviance”, which is what’s treated as “dumbness” here. If it is a desired “heritable” quality, that means to be included or fit to the current intellectual state.
Next to relate as to why I have compared this to the AI results. AI could predict race based on X-rays - but that means as much as IQ being heritable. A normative study for normative thought with no valid conclusions using formal logic as an excuse.
Oh look.
Eugenics.
So, they’ll start with red state Trump voters, yes?
Wait…why cull their voter base?
They don’t need voters any more.
Most of Trump’s base was probably cheering him on until he got to this part:
“The same low-IQ trash who watch the fast and furious franchise.”
Let’s be real, they’re never going to hear about any of this.
I have a feeling they’re going to define anyone who has a college degree and leans anywhere to the left of conservative extremism “low IQ trash”.
Probably worse, enemies or the state. Anyone not in lock step will be put in a camp…prolly about a year out…stay safe
Your college degree will be the new “Star of David” to identify you to the authorities.
Ironically, many of the Republican asshats have degrees, even from (gasp! shock! horror!) Ivy League schools…
Yep, the Nazis defined socialists as degenerates, so I expect any sign of empathy to be seen as a sign of low IQ.
They’ve thought this for decades. Tradespeople have been resenting college nerds who don’t have common sense (funny thing is I’m both of those things). And the cheaters (like tax cheats and grifters) think that the rest of us are dumb for not cheating to get ahead.
I read the article. He defined it as people that like the Fast and the Furious franchise.
I’m not entirely opposed to his suggestion.
“Like” as in, present tense?
I liked it as a kid but I think I outgrew it…so I guess I’m good?
Doesn’t matter if you win by an inch or a mile…
Ahh shit.
He also attended a white nationalist rally that got him fired from his job as a Trump speech writer, suggested rewards for sterilization like “air jordans”, and a few more pieces that suggest he’s got a pretty easy way to determine who is “low iq” at a quick glance.
He wants to euthanize non white people
Edit: Sterilize, not euthanize. I’m sure he would hate to kill all of them
He wants to *sterilize people, not euthanize (according to the article). Maybe he wants to euthanize some people too (likely) but that’s not what the article is about. Euthanasia =/= sterilization.
“Third world low iq sucker punch fights over nothing, with dumb animal spectators jumping up and down in excitement,” said Beattie. “The same low-IQ trash who watch the fast and furious franchise. Beginning to wish the whole population reduction conspiracy were true.”
He’s describing MMA fans, and people (in the USA) that watch fast and the furious… Remember (last month) when Mango Mussolini went to UFC in FL? …yea, he’s hating on the voter base that got him where he is.
He wants to offer air jordans to people that volunteer for vasectomies… uh, they can keep the shoes, but I’m down for more people that cannot afford vasectomies or people without health insurance (there’s an abundance) to get them.
I understand the story that this article is attempting to illustrate, but you’re conflating things. Also, I’d hardly consider the Independent as a reputable source.
Also… I’m getting a little bit tired of outrage that has no output. So this week we’re surprised and outraged about another white nationalist in this administration?
:: yawn::
Shit! I just paid for a vassecectomy!
I mean this is less of a “government funded” thing and more of a “you get it done or we cut your balls off ourselves”.
And personally, I’m of the opinion that now that they want undesirable people sterilized, I won’t submit. The worst thing we can do right now is give them anything.
It was just some gallows humor. Real tiny gallows.
Yeah, that’s why they’re trying to make questioning Trump’s greatness a mental disorder. So they can identify us as irredeemable to dispose of us
Maybe, but I think it will probably start with the amount of melanin you may have first.
Do we start with the Whitehouse?
Start with Congress. There is a glut over there.
Shouldn’t he be former? I thought they axed him after he went to a white nationalist rally?
Well. Yeah. Because he’s a Nazi. Nazis have Nazi opinions. But his version of “low-iq trash” isn’t people with “low-iq” it’s people that impede the image of the in-group.
Otherwise the majority of conservatives would be sterilized.
Best comment.
Where’s those 2nd amendment lovers?
Eugenics…
Don’t be suprised if they add gas chambers to RFK’s wellness farms.
Eugenics also includes in-vitro sterilization and selecting against horrible illnesses like sickle-cell anemia. Nazism, and what Beattie is proposing, is the dark side of eugenics, but eugenics is not inherently bad. Please try to look past the propaganda.
It’s important to separate the personal from the political here. You’re right that not every instance of genetic selection is equivalent to Nazi-style eugenics. But you say that eugenics is “not inherently bad” without really looking at proper definitions or recognising the deep social and historical baggage it carries, especially in how it’s been used to justify racism, ableism, and state violence, and that risks repeating the same logic that allowed those atrocities in the first place.
Choosing not to pass on genetic diseases through voluntary IVF and screening isn’t the same as state-led population engineering which is what eugenics often refers to politically. The key difference is consent and context.
When you talk about selecting against diseases like sickle-cell anaemia, you also have to ask: who defines what counts as a “horrible illness”? Who decides which lives are worth living? (For example, your example of sickle cell anemia comes with the caveat that this illness makes one immune to malaria, which is why it evolved in a significant chunk of the subsaharan african population. Yet Sickle cell anemia was also a favourite scapegoat by 20th century eugenicists to argue that african genes were “inferior”).
Historically, eugenics has disproportionately targeted disabled people, people of colour, poor people, communities with less power. Even modern-day genetic screening isn’t free from those power dynamics. So, no, it’s not “propaganda” to be against eugenics, it’s a necessary ethical stance informed by history and lived experience.
And the IVF example isn’t really eugenics as it is understood. For example, here is the wikipedia definition of eugenics:
Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/ yoo-JEN-iks; from Ancient Greek **εύ̃ (eû) ‘good, well’ and **-γενής (genḗs) ‘born, come into being, growing/grown’)[1] is a set of largely discredited beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.[2][3][4] Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter the frequency of various human phenotypes by inhibiting the fertility of those considered inferior, or promoting that of those considered superior.
So a better example of eugenics is for example the nazi slaughter of 80% of people with schizophrenia. Thinking that by “removing the bad genes” schizophrenia will go away. Yet modern day germany has an average rate of schizophrenia, so that didn’t work. (Ignoring that fact it was literally genocide and is morally apprehensible in nearly every way).
We actually completely agree about everything, including the typical definition of eugenics. Here’s the problem though: when an actually good thing comes along which is technically eugenics (such as the aforementioned IVF programs), it can be called “eugenics” by opponents without much recourse. What’s the solution? Is there a defence along the lines of, “it’s not eugenics, it’s actually <some other word>,” or is the better move to say “not all eugenics is bad” (but more tactfully than that).
The trouble with the former move is that whatever word is chosen will be co-opted by lunatics like Beattie, and then using the word is just going to look like a dog-whistle or something. So unfortunately I’m stuck waving my hands trying to find the least-appalling way to say “#notalleugenics.”
Please, your input is greatly desired as to what to say here. Because I do actually believe in the (
DO NOT TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT) power of good eugenics. You say that I should be discussing the ableist, racist, and other problematic aspects associated with eugenics – I feel like me and my target audience are all aware of these aspects, so you’re essentially saying I should include some form of wrapping to make a pill that can be swallowed more easily to get across my actual point. I don’t necessarily agree with this as it seems manipulative, like a Trojan horse, but I’m open to hearing what you have to say.(Regarding sickle-cell – people who have it generally say it’s a horrible illness. It causes immense pain and suffering, and could be resolved with easier access to IVF. I could have chosen another genetic illness, it’s just the first one that came to mind because I watched The Pitt recently. I’ll admit that choosing an African-associated genetic illness is not a good look for me lol.)
The original nazis got eugenics from the US. That’s why there were so many sympathizers prior to Pearl Harbor. They faded into the background after WWII got going, but they never went away.
The Sympathisers didnt change their tune over Pearl Harbor. PH was a Japanese attack. not a German one
Japan and Germany were aligned with each other, but People who agreed with Hitler didnt just suddenley change their mind because their Asian allies attacked them in the Pacific.
They didn’t change their tune, but they went quiet so they wouldn’t end up camping with the Japanese Americans.
Eugenics was fairly popular worldwide until Hitler, US included.
And they’re trying to make it popular again. I have an uncle who is in a word, deranged. and frequentley touts that “1 in 8 kids in America have Autism”.
weird uncle story incoming…
so I argued with him and said "Whats the condition? whats the criteria? give me the test that these so called kids are being evaluated on, and I bet you I, a guy in his mid 30s who still collects lego, loves my pets more than people, and is very interested in fiction and art, will come up as being on “the spectrum” because the evaluation is so broad that even being a little odd , eccentric or even just unique… always gets associated with aspergers. autism, etc
he then realized what I was saying and switched it around to say "Oh I dont mean anything like that. I mean kids that are so developmentally disabled they wont be able to take care of themselves their entire lives. literally handicapped
So 1 in 8 kids are special edcuation requirement and will need permanent care because they are developmentally challenged? give me a fucking break.
of course. he also talked about Marin County California, a county full of anti vaxers,
If Politics are peoples personalities, being Anti-Vax is my uncle’s personality. The dude 100% believes that there will be a mass murdering purge of all doctors and healthcare workers this year when the “RFK Autism report” comes out.
We’re Canadian by the way. I thought this was a funny addition to the context of this story. Though he did live in America for 30 years, refused to start the citizenship process though
I almost agree with his conclusion but for the opposite reason: I worry for the safety of professionals who say Autism is real and can be managed in less severe cases, because there are crazies like your uncle out there and some of them are violent.
The dude 100% believes that there will be a mass murdering purge of all doctors and healthcare workers this year when the “RFK Autism report” comes out.
…does he not realize that he is also capable of contracting illness? Who does he think is going to take care of him when he breaks his hip or has a stroke?
his own mortality seems to be something that he hasn’t thought about much.
More proof that their alarmism about declining birth rates is bullshit
So Republicans?
Yep, where do I sign? Is there a petition or vote?
Same here, you need signatures?, start with me.
So that would be most of the administration then
Yet the idea of publicly funded contraception and sex education is verbotten
Nice of you to use their native German so they’d understand.
Dah
Then who would vote for them?
They did this in India in the 70s! Forced the poors to get snipped
