"Most people will believe these things when you tell them to them."
This is kind of true--it depends on what you mean by the word "believe" which can be slippery in these sorts of situations. Here's what I think is true of most people:
(1) Most people's anecdotal life experience is in support of the existence of general intelligence. We all knew the one kid in class who never studied but still got A's anyway. We can see that the best students in first grade were by and large the best students in twelth grade. We can see that the best student in math class tended to do well in English class and tended to have broader general knowledge about non-academic subjects.
Yes, there are complications involving Berkson's paradox when people start self-segregating into social groups of similar academic and professional competence. But most people have had at least *some* experience being in settings where there is an appreciable spread in cognitive ability--enough that the idea of "smart" people versus "dumb" people seems meaningful.
(2) Most people *implicitly* act like they believe in the validity of general intelligence when making decisions in "near mode". This is terminology I'm borrowing from Robin Hanson (summarized here: https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/near-far-summaryhtml). Near mode involves focusing on specific, concrete details and experiences, while far mode involves thinking in more abstract and idealistic terms and considering the bigger picture.
When people make decisions in their day-to-day life (should they hire the candidate from Stanford or San Francisco State University; which friend should they ask for help with their trigonometry homework), they operate in near mode. If they see someone perform well in one intellectual context, they naturally assume that this will correlate with performance in a formerly different intellectual context. This happens so often and so without controversy that no one remarks on it.
(3) If you avoid using politically-loaded language, most people will express agreement with the individual statements in your list *in isolation*.
I think the above three statements is true for most people--and in that sense most people "believe" in the existence of general intelligence. However, I think the following is also true of most people:
(4) Most people will become uncomfortable or change the subject if you bluntly ask: "Does general intelligence (as measured by IQ tests) exist?" And in political contexts where they are engaged in far mode ("Should we fund this Pre-K program to enrich inner city kids?"), they will not act as if general intelligence doesn't exist, but ignore/shun people who try to asserts its relevance.
(5) If you present your list of facts about general intelligence all at once, people will reject the entire complex even though they might struggle to single out any one particular fact as incorrect. People aren't stupid. They know when you are trying to trap them into confessing to something that would be inconvenient for them to confess to. They will abandon logical consistency at the first sign of danger.
So it's a bit ambiguous whether not people really "believe" in general intelligence. And importantly, policy and social norms are dictated by explicit, avowed beliefs instead of implicit, revealed preferences.
“ There is a possibility embryo selection (aka eugenics) will become a politically toxic subject within the next 10 years… This technology will lead to increased levels of observable inequality in society, and will become even more contentious if this tech is not used at the same rate across classes and races. ”
Very good essay, I must read it again after some thought. Immediately however, I think the timeline is a bit optimistic. For one, the technique of embryo selection is in its infancy—still developing, expensive and not commonly used. Second, the results should become apparent (measurable) following a generational timeline, which seems longer than 10 years. Third (a combination of the above two observations) the technique will begin on a smallish scale and grow (become popularized) with time. Initial success may therefore be masked until numbers of subjects reaches a size that can be shown (recognized) to be significant in effect.
I’m not worried as much about the concept being proven however, as I believe the “technique” is already in use, albeit in a different and less effective and universal form. We call it “assortive mating”. It has been going on forever, but became more frequent in the USA since WWII and the GI Bill. I for one see it (this form of eugenics) as the only solution to our current “racial” problem in the USA. To me the question is, “Is it too late to help keep this country intact?”
I doubt lots of people care that much about intelligence to do embryo selection or gene editing. First of all the people in the potential customer group are barely breeding as it is, it will be social suicide for most of them to be caught obsessing over intelligence and the egg collection and implantation procedures are lengthy, painful and humiliating. Conceiving kids the old way is much more fun.
No doubt the old fashion way is more fun and preferable, but the aspect of concern for one’s child’s genetics is quite real and an enlarging field. My daughter is in genetic counseling. Every large hospital with obstetrics has a dept these days. Plus, there are now private counseling centers that take hospital referrals. Programs in genetic counseling are springing up in all the major university med schools. These programs are swamped with applicants. It is the wave of the future.
Of course the main concern still is birth defects and how to avoid them, e.g., don’t marry your sister. ;-) However, it’s a short step for those desiring a healthy child to seek counseling in embryo selection—and they already do, sort of—it’s now known as abortion. :-( Seems to me not too far off will be testing the embryo for a suite of desirable and undesirable traits. Desirable and undesirable traits left to your imagination and the salesman’s pitch. Abort, conceive, abort, conceive, ad nauseam also has its drawbacks. Also I may add, I’ve seen and daughter has, a little publicized phenomenon occurring—inability to conceive due (presumably) to low and poor sperm. IVF may become more common—and necessary—than you think.
My discussion here is limited to the USA, but what of other countries and cultures? Does one for a moment believe a country such as China will not encourage such eugenic selection? This would seems to me *the* new 21st century, technological “arms race”, which is why HBD science is so interesting.
China is very blank slatist due to both communism and confucianism. Despite that some westerners hoped China will engage in large scale eugenic procedures like embryo selection or gene editing until the imprisonment for 3 years of geneticist He Jiankui for using CRISPR on 2 babies. China also has a growing fertility problem with the TFR in rich urban centers being at south korean levels.
The culture most open to eugenics is indian so if we are going to see these procedures adopted at a larger scale it will probably be by upper class/caste indians and indian diaspora.
Some dispute on China. CRISPR is not embryo selection and when it was in effect, their “one child” policy was a horror in strict enforcement, so it’s not hard to imagine a promotion of eugenics vis a vis embryo selection should the CCP deem this in national interest, but that’s not important. India will do fine. India was in my thinking, but I skipped it as to length. India has a caste system precisely because of arranged marriages and therefore “assortive mating” over the centuries. This will of course continue and perhaps be enhanced by the wealthy, high caste elites using genetic counseling and/or embryo selection.
There's also a small contingent of economically leftist people who are also race hereditarians, some are even communists. There is no immediate contradiction between these views, but it gets difficult when one starts thinking about the role of meritocracy in society. One cannot have meritocracy without a monetary motivating factor, which of course, means some level of economic inequality (ruling out communism), but which can be consistent with economic leftism to some extent (e.g. Nordic social democracy).
You could probably defend a UBI with closed borders if you believed in genetics + were left wing.
But that would mean a total collapse in the size of government (why spend such sums on education if it doesn't change IQ, etc).
Most of the government is a mixture of midwits and trained professionals providing overpriced government services that don't achieve their objectives because they can't change genetics. If you can no longer justify that based on ROI, a lot of people lose their jobs.
State subsidized embryo selection and generous maternity leave for working women is to the left what nuclear and deregulation of clean energy (and perhaps carbon tax) is to the right.
A welfare state that subsidizes embryo selection is a no-brainer for hereditarian leftists. I myself am pro-market but I would love to see Israel-style subsidized IVF and genetic screening everywhere.
Nonsense that this will get banned. America has no regulation. Anomaly startup in Austin is doing it (see LessWrong post). Outside America as well. Israel has some private IVF clinics which aren’t well regulated (there were even a few instances of embryo mixups at such clinics) as well as government subsidized IVF and screening already. Denmark also subsidizes IVF. Singapore? China? I think China might ban it. But there’s always Prospera. A global ban on ES won’t happen. No way.
Some smart people seem to genuinely believe the woke option. This seems to be what Sasha Gusev believes. As I understand his views, he thinks that twin studies produce massively biased heritability estimates and that GWAS studies show that genes only explain a small part of the variation in cognitive ability and educational attainment. http://gusevlab.org/projects/hsq/
"Most people will believe these things when you tell them to them."
This is kind of true--it depends on what you mean by the word "believe" which can be slippery in these sorts of situations. Here's what I think is true of most people:
(1) Most people's anecdotal life experience is in support of the existence of general intelligence. We all knew the one kid in class who never studied but still got A's anyway. We can see that the best students in first grade were by and large the best students in twelth grade. We can see that the best student in math class tended to do well in English class and tended to have broader general knowledge about non-academic subjects.
Yes, there are complications involving Berkson's paradox when people start self-segregating into social groups of similar academic and professional competence. But most people have had at least *some* experience being in settings where there is an appreciable spread in cognitive ability--enough that the idea of "smart" people versus "dumb" people seems meaningful.
(2) Most people *implicitly* act like they believe in the validity of general intelligence when making decisions in "near mode". This is terminology I'm borrowing from Robin Hanson (summarized here: https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/near-far-summaryhtml). Near mode involves focusing on specific, concrete details and experiences, while far mode involves thinking in more abstract and idealistic terms and considering the bigger picture.
When people make decisions in their day-to-day life (should they hire the candidate from Stanford or San Francisco State University; which friend should they ask for help with their trigonometry homework), they operate in near mode. If they see someone perform well in one intellectual context, they naturally assume that this will correlate with performance in a formerly different intellectual context. This happens so often and so without controversy that no one remarks on it.
(3) If you avoid using politically-loaded language, most people will express agreement with the individual statements in your list *in isolation*.
I think the above three statements is true for most people--and in that sense most people "believe" in the existence of general intelligence. However, I think the following is also true of most people:
(4) Most people will become uncomfortable or change the subject if you bluntly ask: "Does general intelligence (as measured by IQ tests) exist?" And in political contexts where they are engaged in far mode ("Should we fund this Pre-K program to enrich inner city kids?"), they will not act as if general intelligence doesn't exist, but ignore/shun people who try to asserts its relevance.
(5) If you present your list of facts about general intelligence all at once, people will reject the entire complex even though they might struggle to single out any one particular fact as incorrect. People aren't stupid. They know when you are trying to trap them into confessing to something that would be inconvenient for them to confess to. They will abandon logical consistency at the first sign of danger.
So it's a bit ambiguous whether not people really "believe" in general intelligence. And importantly, policy and social norms are dictated by explicit, avowed beliefs instead of implicit, revealed preferences.
They could still believe in g, but that it can be enriched by educational programs, which is incorrect, unfortunately.
“ There is a possibility embryo selection (aka eugenics) will become a politically toxic subject within the next 10 years… This technology will lead to increased levels of observable inequality in society, and will become even more contentious if this tech is not used at the same rate across classes and races. ”
Very good essay, I must read it again after some thought. Immediately however, I think the timeline is a bit optimistic. For one, the technique of embryo selection is in its infancy—still developing, expensive and not commonly used. Second, the results should become apparent (measurable) following a generational timeline, which seems longer than 10 years. Third (a combination of the above two observations) the technique will begin on a smallish scale and grow (become popularized) with time. Initial success may therefore be masked until numbers of subjects reaches a size that can be shown (recognized) to be significant in effect.
I’m not worried as much about the concept being proven however, as I believe the “technique” is already in use, albeit in a different and less effective and universal form. We call it “assortive mating”. It has been going on forever, but became more frequent in the USA since WWII and the GI Bill. I for one see it (this form of eugenics) as the only solution to our current “racial” problem in the USA. To me the question is, “Is it too late to help keep this country intact?”
I doubt lots of people care that much about intelligence to do embryo selection or gene editing. First of all the people in the potential customer group are barely breeding as it is, it will be social suicide for most of them to be caught obsessing over intelligence and the egg collection and implantation procedures are lengthy, painful and humiliating. Conceiving kids the old way is much more fun.
No doubt the old fashion way is more fun and preferable, but the aspect of concern for one’s child’s genetics is quite real and an enlarging field. My daughter is in genetic counseling. Every large hospital with obstetrics has a dept these days. Plus, there are now private counseling centers that take hospital referrals. Programs in genetic counseling are springing up in all the major university med schools. These programs are swamped with applicants. It is the wave of the future.
Of course the main concern still is birth defects and how to avoid them, e.g., don’t marry your sister. ;-) However, it’s a short step for those desiring a healthy child to seek counseling in embryo selection—and they already do, sort of—it’s now known as abortion. :-( Seems to me not too far off will be testing the embryo for a suite of desirable and undesirable traits. Desirable and undesirable traits left to your imagination and the salesman’s pitch. Abort, conceive, abort, conceive, ad nauseam also has its drawbacks. Also I may add, I’ve seen and daughter has, a little publicized phenomenon occurring—inability to conceive due (presumably) to low and poor sperm. IVF may become more common—and necessary—than you think.
My discussion here is limited to the USA, but what of other countries and cultures? Does one for a moment believe a country such as China will not encourage such eugenic selection? This would seems to me *the* new 21st century, technological “arms race”, which is why HBD science is so interesting.
China is very blank slatist due to both communism and confucianism. Despite that some westerners hoped China will engage in large scale eugenic procedures like embryo selection or gene editing until the imprisonment for 3 years of geneticist He Jiankui for using CRISPR on 2 babies. China also has a growing fertility problem with the TFR in rich urban centers being at south korean levels.
The culture most open to eugenics is indian so if we are going to see these procedures adopted at a larger scale it will probably be by upper class/caste indians and indian diaspora.
Some dispute on China. CRISPR is not embryo selection and when it was in effect, their “one child” policy was a horror in strict enforcement, so it’s not hard to imagine a promotion of eugenics vis a vis embryo selection should the CCP deem this in national interest, but that’s not important. India will do fine. India was in my thinking, but I skipped it as to length. India has a caste system precisely because of arranged marriages and therefore “assortive mating” over the centuries. This will of course continue and perhaps be enhanced by the wealthy, high caste elites using genetic counseling and/or embryo selection.
There's also Israel, Singapore, UAE. All are small but they seem like good bets.
> There is a possibility embryo selection (aka eugenics) will become a politically toxic subject within the next 20 years.
Going to happen much sooner. Hanania is bottom selling $HBD.
There's also a small contingent of economically leftist people who are also race hereditarians, some are even communists. There is no immediate contradiction between these views, but it gets difficult when one starts thinking about the role of meritocracy in society. One cannot have meritocracy without a monetary motivating factor, which of course, means some level of economic inequality (ruling out communism), but which can be consistent with economic leftism to some extent (e.g. Nordic social democracy).
You could probably defend a UBI with closed borders if you believed in genetics + were left wing.
But that would mean a total collapse in the size of government (why spend such sums on education if it doesn't change IQ, etc).
Most of the government is a mixture of midwits and trained professionals providing overpriced government services that don't achieve their objectives because they can't change genetics. If you can no longer justify that based on ROI, a lot of people lose their jobs.
State subsidized embryo selection and generous maternity leave for working women is to the left what nuclear and deregulation of clean energy (and perhaps carbon tax) is to the right.
A welfare state that subsidizes embryo selection is a no-brainer for hereditarian leftists. I myself am pro-market but I would love to see Israel-style subsidized IVF and genetic screening everywhere.
Nonsense that this will get banned. America has no regulation. Anomaly startup in Austin is doing it (see LessWrong post). Outside America as well. Israel has some private IVF clinics which aren’t well regulated (there were even a few instances of embryo mixups at such clinics) as well as government subsidized IVF and screening already. Denmark also subsidizes IVF. Singapore? China? I think China might ban it. But there’s always Prospera. A global ban on ES won’t happen. No way.
Some smart people seem to genuinely believe the woke option. This seems to be what Sasha Gusev believes. As I understand his views, he thinks that twin studies produce massively biased heritability estimates and that GWAS studies show that genes only explain a small part of the variation in cognitive ability and educational attainment. http://gusevlab.org/projects/hsq/
Where does the peak at age 15-25 come from? Isn't it middle age