[spritefs]

> Aligning society along a hierarchy of "intelligence" is really just aligning it on a hierarchy of access to education, which is just a function of economic class privilege (or racial class privilege really, these are tightly integrated even today in many societies for historical or otherwise reasons).

This is the claim: intelligence is just some combination of education, class, and race

Let's state the obvious here: genetics. Why did you conveniently leave that one out? Are you in denial about (inherently) stupid people existing or something? Can you prove that they don't exist?

Also, before you assume I'm being more specific: I'm not saying equal access to education is a wasted endeavor. Sure, make the public school system good in rich and poor areas

But we're talking about intelligence in general here, so leaving genetics out is just avoiding the obvious because it isn't politically satisfying

[komali2]

Can you demonstrate that genetic factors play a stronger part in how our society defines "intelligence" than the things I mentioned?

I doubt this can be demonstrated to have a much stronger effect than educational opportunities, which is a function of class, which in some societies, such as American society, is a function partially of race, for historical and contemporary reasons, as well as a function of economic condition (the two are inexorably linked for reason of generational wealth).

> leaving genetics out is just avoiding the obvious because it isn't politically satisfying

I'm very much of the opinion, and as far as I understand it research backs me up here, that while of course various aspects of intelligence can be affected by genetics, the overall outcomes are vastly more affected by things we have lots of control over, such as the egalitarianian-ness of our society, than things we don't really have control over, such as each individual's genetics (and do we want to go down the path of structuring our hierarchies around this? shall I go get the swath of sci fi warning against this?)

You seem to disagree, not sure why, though I'm curious!

> Are you in denial about (inherently) stupid people existing or something?

Nope, just seems mostly irrelevant in this conversation. What's the point of talking about genetics here? How about we do achieve educational access egalitarian, truly, and we find out some people aren't doing quite as good of art, or writing quite as good as poetry, or dreaming up quite as interesting apps, or doing engineering quite as fast, because they lost a genes lottery. Do you think it's a good idea to start structuring hierarchies around this? Seems cruel and pointless to me.

[spritefs]

> that while of course various aspects of intelligence can be affected by genetics

Yep this is what I was looking for. Given this, the original claim isn't right

> Can you demonstrate that genetic factors play a stronger part in how our society defines "intelligence" than the things I mentioned?

Claim above was that intelligence "is really just" access to education, but now the goalpost has shifted

Now it's that access to education is "the most significant part". Is it? How could we know either way? By churning out a bunch of studies? The claim still isn't falsifiable

[komali2]

> Claim above was that intelligence "is really just" access to education, but now the goalpost has shifted

It really is just that.

Similarly, strength is really just about how much you work out. "But genetic factors!!" Eh, it's mostly just about how much you work out. It's not really worth talking about genetic factors when the majority of the population can't do a single pullup. Are we moving goalposts, or rather just doing actionable conversations?

> Now it's that access to education is "the most significant part". Is it? How could we know either way? By churning out a bunch of studies? The claim still isn't falsifiable

I'm not going to do your work for you. For some reason you really wanna talk about genes. I'll be honest, I'm going to take you at good faith here, but I'm mighty suspicious of where you're hoping this conversation will go.

Why are you more interested in talking about genetic factors of intelligence than the far more significant factors in economic conditions? What's the deal here? Where you going with this?

[spritefs]

> Similarly, strength is really just about how much you work out.

Some people can get shredded really easily because of genetics. Some people are just naturally more fit than others

> but I'm mighty suspicious of where you're hoping this conversation will go.

My point is your initial point is an oversimplification. If you throw the same resources at the same group of people from a similar socioeconomic status, there will still be a difference of ability. Some people will move faster than others

So the crux of my argument is this: just because there's an inequality of outcome does not imply that the cause is purely socioeconomic. Given constitutional differences, striving for equality of outcome is a sub-optimal use of resources

Should there be standards or some kind of baseline? Yes. But striving for absolute equality of outcome at the expense of everything else is a net negative for society

[komali2]

Nobody is talking about equality of outcome except you. Why did you bring it up?

It is good and right to provide good and equal educational opportunities to people regardless of economic status. Countries like the USA aren't, and should. What are you arguing for here, some kind of genetic evaluation first to make sure we aren't "wasting resources" on a kid that will do math a little more slow? Why not just redirect abundance to the point it doesn't matter?

[astrange]

This is cope. Nobody goes around denying Down's syndrome exists, so when you say "they're denying genetics" you actually mean "they're denying it except for all the times they don't".

Nevertheless I do deny it. Genes don't cause anything, they just sit there in nucleuses. If you don't include the entire causal chain you're not serious either.