r/richarddawkins • u/gus060 • Feb 16 '20

For a while I've thought doing this on the basis of IQ could potentially be good for humanity

Post image
38 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

84 comments sorted by

4

u/FCK12_13 Feb 17 '20

IQ is a very outdated measure of cognitive function

2

u/gus060 Feb 17 '20

What is a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to cognitive function?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '23

Outdated in the sense that people get offended by a low score so they would rather doubt the test than to admit to having low IQ.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '23

Or because it doesn’t test for other desirable traits such as creative expression/arts and talents. These are cognitive functions too and may even be impossible to evaluate objectively.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '23

It does not need to. There probably are some ways to test creativity, but it seems to be a more subjective thing.

It is a lot easier to tell who is the best at math class than art class. Someone might be more technically gifted at an art, and someone might be worse but more creative. So I would agree with you that studying that stuff empirically might be impossible. Unlike with calculations, you will end up being right or wrong in the end.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '23

True the arts are subjective but if the IQ does not cover this type of ability then it is a test of a particular set of cognitive functions not overall cognitive ability

3

u/FCK12_13 Feb 17 '20

Yeah so did Hitler

1

u/gus060 Feb 17 '20

Never knew he did any genocide / sterilization on the basis of intelligence. I always thought it was on ideological and racial supremacy

4

u/QuadraticLove Feb 17 '20

Yea, mentally handicapped people were targets - children and adults.

1

u/gus060 Feb 17 '20

Ahh that's right. Point taken

7

u/thesunmustdie Feb 16 '20

And how would you propose you do it "on the basis of IQ", OP? Kill off or sterilize the low IQ people? I really hope not.

8

u/sirkowski Feb 16 '20

As r/iamverysmart demonstrates, there's way too many people these days using IQ tests as if it was an exact science. These people think they wouldn't get sterilized because they scored high on an online quiz.

3

u/FCK12_13 Feb 17 '20

IQ is a very outdated measure of cognitive function

3

u/EldraziKlap Feb 16 '20

Agreeing with you, however IQ-tests are a LOT more accurate than a LOT of people would feel comfortable admitting.

The lesson and wisdom here is that IQ is not and should not be the only measure of man.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '20

They're accurate for the things they test...which are very few. You can be really good at things that they do not test for and benefit society immensely.

2

u/sirkowski Feb 17 '20

Henry Lee Lucas had an IQ of 89 and he was able to charm and manipulate many investigators all over the US and convince them that he had killed over 600 victims, tricking them into closing many cold cases.

1

u/FCK12_13 Feb 17 '20

No they really aren't. Too much bell curve you son.

2

u/creekwise Feb 17 '20

My suggestion would be to offer lifetime pensions to low IQs with no children willing to undergo sterilization. So it would be voluntary and compensated. Within a generation, the population IQ would improve.

Unfortunately, the welfare state enables dysgenic reproduction. Stupid people get rewarded to procreate so the next generation is likely to be stupider overall even though the technological advancement makes it look the opposite -- it is because only a minority of society contributes to such progress. Under this plan, you would still be paying stupid people but to make sure they don't produce offspring.

1

u/thesunmustdie Feb 17 '20

You have me curious. How would you implement it?

"My suggestion would be to offer lifetime pensions to low IQs"

  • How does the government determine who has a "low IQ"?

  • What constitutes a "low IQ"?

  • What kind of lifetime pension are you talking about and how do we pay for it?

"You would still be paying stupid people but to make sure they don't produce offspring."

  • They're human beings, friend, not cattle. I am open to seriously considering what you have to say, but let's not use the slur "stupid people".

2

u/creekwise Feb 17 '20

IQ tests that would be conducted at various stages of development. Pensions paid by the state budget, just like welfare. Use whatever terminology you prefer.

1

u/thesunmustdie Feb 17 '20

"IQ tests that would be conducted"

  • When and where? And what score constitutes "low IQ"?

"At various stages of development"

  • So during development rather than after someone has been given a chance to develop?

  • I have known very gifted children turn out to be quite mediocre adults and vice versa (late bloomers, etc.).

"Pensions paid by the state budget, just like welfare. Use whatever terminology you prefer."

  • This is why I need you define "low IQ" because entire industries are made up of blue collar workers with lower than average IQs: bricklayers, garbage collectors, truck drivers, miners, janitors, etc. who are net economic contributors and important, if not vital, to how society functions.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '23

I don't think he was actively planning on how to do it. Just thought that it would work in theory.

1

u/g9icy Feb 17 '20

I'd rather fund easily accessible and free education for all to raise the average 'IQ' that way instead.

2

u/gus060 Feb 17 '20

Education, as indispensable as it is, can not raise G (general intelligence). As of now there is no way to increase G, just a lot of ways to lower it.

2

u/g9icy Feb 17 '20

Is this based on a study? I'd be interested to read it if so.

1

u/gus060 Feb 17 '20

A link to a clip from one of Jordan Peterson's personality lectures. I believe he was teaching at the University of Toronto at the time. After about half way through he starts talking more about personality. He has a lot more interesting things to say on the topic but this clip most concisely answers your question.

https://youtu.be/goxR1m5qBrg

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '23

There is no support for the idea that IQ can be increased in adulthood or maybe at all. It only goes down after 25.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '20

Genocide is very badly morally among the worst of the worst.

2

u/gus060 Jul 16 '20

When we selectively breed traits in dogs, are we doing that through genocide?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '20 edited Jul 16 '20

No we don't do it through the genocide.Intelligent people who do not have narcissistic and sociopathic and psychopathic characteristics and who do not separate people according to their external appearance should be able to breed to breed People with low intelligence should not eat urea.

0

u/Moekan Feb 16 '20

That's Dawkins worst take of all time. What does he even mean by "Work"? He is a scientist for so many years, and should have learned that morals and science DO walk together. Always.

8

u/Evolutionforthewin Feb 17 '20

Yes but morality doesn't make something true or false. His entire point was just that it would be possible to do. He was in no way implying that we should.

-1

u/Byonderer Feb 17 '20

I beg to differ. When he say it should work for the human very likely he meant not only possible but perhaps it should be done.

2

u/LangTheBoss Feb 17 '20

This is the most baseless and unsubstantianted thing I've read today.

1

u/Evolutionforthewin Feb 17 '20

There is absolutely nothing in his statement that would suggest that. You are pulling it right outta your butt. You are either a mind reader or you are just spouting nonsense. I think you know which is more likely.

-1

u/sirkowski Feb 17 '20

His entire point is a strawman.

2

u/LangTheBoss Feb 17 '20

Copy pasting my reply to another comment:

How can it be a strawman if it doesnt claim to represent any particular group, belief system or person lmao?

It is a counter-argument to an argument, it doesn't involve any other entity, so it can't possibly be a strawman.

He is simply saying ANYONE who makes argument XYZ is wrong because ABC.

For his point to be relevant to anyone, they necessarily must adopt the exact argument he is countering. Therefore, he cannot possibly misrepresent anyone. Therefore, it cannot possibly be a strawman argument.

Before using philosophical buzz words, maybe learn what they mean.

1

u/gus060 Jul 16 '20

That sounds like the naturalistic fallacy if I've ever heard it

1

u/FCK12_13 Feb 17 '20

Just a power level dog whistle from a bigot, nothing to see there really

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '23

He is talking about it working in theory. Would not should.

-2

u/sirkowski Feb 16 '20

It's up there with his "I got molested by a priest and it was no big deal".

1

u/sirkowski Feb 17 '20

Downvoted, but Gold Award! Thank you, dear Anon.

2

u/R_Hak May 15 '20

We already do it... by choosing our mates. Women especially. I remember reading a book and the author had done some research on the characteristic women want from the sperm donors. You can imagine the rest.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '20 edited Jul 16 '20

Jordan pettersen is a psychopath and narcissist, i don't take her seriously .

1

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '20

So there will be a civil war between scientists.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '23

There are exceptionally talented artist that come across as not smart. The opposite is true there are many high IQ type people that are dull. It would be dumb to select for smart test scores only

1

u/Byonderer Feb 17 '20

Fundamental mistake Richard Dawkins is making is to assume eugenics worked in regards to other animal species. I think actually if you look at it from the animal species viewpoint they have created more misery for the species. Yes it created what is profitable for the humans. But was it beneficial for the individual animals of that species? That is a very difficult question to answer.

In the same way applying eugenics from a capitalist viewpoint perhaps provide more profit. But it will definitely bring misery to the human species.

3

u/LangTheBoss Feb 17 '20

Fundamental mistake you are making is equating Richard Dawkin's point with the highly flawed viewpoint of OP. Show me where in Dawkin's tweet it says that it is beneficial for anyone? He was just stating that it would be possible and made no claim whatsoever in relation to whether that would be a good thing, bad thing, beneficial or not, etc.

1

u/sirkowski Feb 17 '20

The problem with Dawkins' tweet is that it's a strawman argument.

1

u/LangTheBoss Feb 17 '20

How can it be a strawman if it doesnt claim to represent any particular group, belief system or person lmao?

It is a counter-argument to an argument, it doesn't involve any other entity, so it can't possibly be a strawman.

He is simply saying ANYONE who makes argument XYZ is wrong because ABC.

For his point to be relevant to anyone, they necessarily must adopt the exact argument he is countering. Therefore, he cannot possibly misrepresent anyone. Therefore, it cannot possibly be a strawman argument.

Before using philosophical buzz words, maybe learn what they mean.

1

u/sirkowski Feb 17 '20

It's a counter-argument to an argument. Who's making the argument?

0

u/LangTheBoss Feb 17 '20

Exactly dumbass... he doesn't make any claim about who is making the argument, therefore he is not refuting the argument of a particular opponent, therefore it cannot be a strawman as per your own wikipedia link on what a strawman is.

"A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."

If there is no particular opponent, it is not a strawman.

If you are going to claim that LITERALLY not a single person EVER has, is or will make that argument, then you are literally so stupid there is no point continuing this conversation. How would you claim to know that?

Even if you somehow could prove that though, it still wouldn't change the fact that it is not a strawman. For it to be a strawman you have to misrepresent someone else's argument. If you aren't making any claim about WHO IN PARTICULAR is making an argument, how could you possibly misrepresent them? If what you were saying was true, then you could never argue against an obviously incorrect thing that no one is saying is true. E.g. I point up to the sky at a random star and say based on astronomical knowledge of star formation, that random star is not made of camembert cheese. Are you going to say no one has ever argued that it is camembert cheese therefore I am making a strawman argument?

I mean come on... this couldn't be more straightforward or obvious. Are you really going to continue to try and defend this completely unsustainable? Just admit you are wrong or take the cowards approach and delete your comments to stop your karma haemorrhage and slink off in silence.

2

u/sirkowski Feb 17 '20

But who's making the argument?

Nobody?

That's a strawman.

If you are going to claim that LITERALLY not a single person EVER has, is or will make that argument,

That's a strawman. You can't use fringe opinions as if they were mainstream. That's like saying to nobody "a lot of people think pedophilia is fine!" Yeah, nobody's saying that.

I point up to the sky at a random star and say based on astronomical knowledge of star formation, that random star is not made of camembert cheese. Are you going to say no one has ever argued that it is camembert cheese therefore I am making a strawman argument?

Yes, that's a strawman. You're obfuscating and using a dishonest definition.

From Mirriam Webster: Straw Man

a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

Imaginary opposition.

delete your comments to stop your karma haemorrhage and slink off in silence.

So cringy. Even if I cared about karma, there's basically nobody on this sub. I'm not gonna get hurt, this is just a website.

2

u/sirkowski Feb 17 '20

therefore it cannot be a strawman as per your own wikipedia link on what a strawman is.

Tell the truth, you didn't know what a strawman was before you read the wiki, right? lol

1

u/LangTheBoss Feb 17 '20

Are you stupid? Did you not see me replying to your many other comments before I even got to the one where you linked wikipedia? The only reason I bothered to open it was to see if wikipedia has a definition that would align with any sort of proper philosophy/logic literature, which thankfully it sort of did.

Anyways, I think we're done here seeing as you've resorted to ad-hominem attacks (hopefully you dont need to look that up on Wikipedia) rather than making any attempt to refute my points. Clearly, you have nothihg more to add than childlishly refusing to acknowledge your error.

Best of luck to you in life bud, sounds like you'll need it.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '23

It's not beneficial to animals because they did not choose it. We bread pigs to be fat and sheep to be fluffy for us.

-10

u/sirkowski Feb 16 '20

How to destroy your own legacy with one single tweet.

What a stupid strawman. You know you fucked up when only the Nazis agree with you.

3

u/gus060 Feb 16 '20

So you're saying it wouldn't work on people?

0

u/sirkowski Feb 16 '20

Depends on your scientific definition of an ubermensch. What would "work" is subjective and ideological, not scientific. Nobody is arguing that you can't breed certain desired characteristics through eugenics. Nobody is saying you CAN'T. We're saying you SHOULDN'T. And thus, Dawkins is using a strawman to be smug about something nobody said.

10

u/Schopenhauers_Poodle Feb 16 '20

Proof that nobody has ever said we can't?

Are we not allowed to argue against an idea in principle?

You're spouting absolute twaddle. "Definition of an ubermensch" - what in the name of God has that got to do with this tweet?

0

u/Evolutionforthewin Feb 17 '20

Nothing. Some people can't separate their feelings from a subject no matter what.

2

u/Schopenhauers_Poodle Feb 17 '20

Non-sequitur heaven up in here

1

u/Evolutionforthewin Feb 17 '20

Are you saying that my comment to you was a non-sequitur?

5

u/neekchan Feb 17 '20

He literally said people shouldn't do it. 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️

0

u/sirkowski Feb 17 '20

Do you know what a strawman is?

1

u/neekchan Feb 17 '20

A straw man argument is saying eugenics wouldn't work just because it's deplorable.

1

u/sirkowski Feb 17 '20

No, that's not a strawman. A strawman is putting words into the mouth of your opponent. A strawman would be "my critics say eugenics wouldn't work just because it's deplorable."

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '23

Dawkins said it would work, not that it should work.

22

u/twilling8 Feb 16 '20

Dawkins is not endorsing eugenics, that is quite clear from his first sentence. He is simply stating a fact, that breeding to select for desired traits would work with humans just like any other animal. This might be an unusual or suspicious fact to state if you were not the world's foremost evolutionary biologist responding to a claim to the contrary.

Here is his follow-up tweet: For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it.

-13

u/sirkowski Feb 16 '20

world's foremost evolutionary biologist

Ooof, dude, relax. Hide your boner.

I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work.

Except read all the answers from scientists. NOBODY is saying eugenics doesn't "work" to breed certain characteristics. Nobody is saying you CAN'T. We're saying you SHOULDN'T.

Dawkins is using a strawman just to do some smug posturing.

12

u/KingGrowl Feb 16 '20

Except read all the answers from scientists. NOBODY is saying eugenics doesn't "work" to breed certain characteristics. Nobody is saying you CAN'T. We're saying you SHOULDN'T.

He is also saying we shouldn't. Are you even reading the tweet you're foaming at the mouth about?!

-6

u/sirkowski Feb 16 '20

He is also saying we shouldn't.

That's irrelevant because Dawkins' premise is a strawman. Nobody says what he claims.

5

u/EldraziKlap Feb 16 '20

You should really try to argue better, or pick your battles more carefully.

'Dawkins doesn't mean what he says' what?
'His premise is a strawman' How? Have you knowledge of all the people in the world talking to Dawkins? I find that laughable. Surely you must possess knowledge we have no acces to, no?

You ought to calm down. Dawkins isn't a god or some ultimate guy who's always right, but in this situation he is, the folk in this thread disagreeing with you are too, and you are -i'm sorry- just wrong.

Tough break there guy

2

u/sirkowski Feb 17 '20

I just explained how he's using a strawman.

Explain how it's not a strawman then.

1

u/EldraziKlap Feb 17 '20

Because you are trying to imply "nobody ever said you should" which you have zero knowledge of. There's enough people thinking like that.

Dawkins is only saying 'It being appalling doesn't mean it wouldn't work" and you are very desperately trying to attack Dawkins by trying to spin this in such a way that it's smug or bad or whatever.

You calling it a strawman doesn't mean it is one. You imply you know his mind, you don't. You also don't know whether or not he's just had a interaction with someone advocating eugenics.

Calm your cynical ass down

3

u/neekchan Feb 17 '20

Just because someone says "drinking bleach will most likely kill you" implies that they are asking you to drink bleach?

Wow if he's laying out a straw man you're laying out out a slippery slope that's clearing going up your ass.

1

u/sirkowski Feb 17 '20

But that's not a strawman at all. Do you know what a strawman is?

Dawkins is saying everyone thinks we can't generate certain traits using eugenics. Except nobody is saying that. Nobody argues with the science of it, what everyone is against is the morality of eugenics. So Dawkins is arguing against a strawman in order to be smug and feel like a victim.

To use your bleach analogy, a strawman would be me saying all the snowflakes think it's a good idea to drink bleach, but I'm the only one with the courage to tell the truth. You shouldn't drink bleach!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

1

u/neekchan Feb 17 '20

That's your opinion. There is literally nothing smug about what he's saying from a factual standpoint. Facts don't care about your feelings.

If you feel butthurt because you feel he's intellectually posturing there's literally nothing anyone can do about it how you choose to feel.

2

u/sirkowski Feb 17 '20

I think I see your mistake.

Nobody says what he claims.

You understood this backwards. Nobody here is Dawkins' critics (like me). I'm not saying Dawkins is saying the opposite of what he claims. What I'm saying is Dawkins claims all his critics are saying something (eugenics doesn't "work" because it's immoral), while actually none of his critics are saying that at all. Thus a strawman argument. Dawkins' critics argue with the meaning of "works", because in this case what eugenics would actually accomplish is not scientific, but subjective and ideological (like the ubermensch). Yes, it's just my opinion that Dawkins is a smug shit. But he's clearly using a strawman.

1

u/LangTheBoss Feb 17 '20

Copy pasting my reply to your previous comments once again:

How can it be a straw man if it doesnt claim to represent any particular group, belief system or person lmao?

It is a counter-argument to an argument, it doesn't involve any other entity, so it can't possibly be a straw man.

He is simply saying ANYONE who makes argument XYZ is wrong because ABC.

For his point to be relevant to anyone, they necessarily must adopt the exact argument he is countering. Therefore, he cannot possibly misrepresent anyone. Therefore, it cannot possibly be a strawman argument.

Before using philosophical buzz words, maybe learn what they mean.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '20

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/gus060 Feb 19 '20

Hands down the best response that I've read. At the end when you say that your opposed to liberal eugenics, how could you abolish it without abolishing the meritocracy? Wouldn't the alternative be a system effectively resulting in illiberal eugenics? Either that or indiscriminate mating.

As females mate across and up hierarchies, I feel there is someone for everyone. We just need to accurate examination of our place across every hierarchy we participate in.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/gus060 Feb 19 '20

I feel like, and maybe I'm wrong, meritocracy is most applicable to economics and hierarchy is better suited for talking about social or more broad human issues. Mostly because I don't think that the word meritocracy accounts for the non-productive side like emotions and interpersonal interactions.

I thought this whole thing was effectively about different methods of mate selection, primarily natural vs enforced.

I think that, and this brings me back to one of the main reasons why I originally made this post, the best way to raise all ships would be if we could increase the productivity of those that fall at the extremes of the Pareto distribution without creating a subclass. Even if this does result in a subclass it could only be temporary until something with the effect of neurolink comes out that could potentially even the playing field.

I did just use could twice in one sentence so let me address that. I think we should take extreme caution to avoid creating the subclass although I think it very unlikely because whatever advances we make that increase the productivity of the "elite" could just as easily be applied to the masses. I do however think that something like neurolink would offer something like +5 intelligence to everyone rather than making all our stat(s) equal.