Choice is a useful construct even if the universe is purely deterministic. The concept of an internal "locus of control", rather than external one, is healthy and positive.

http://wilderdom.com/psychology/loc/...rolWhatIs.html

The notion that we're entirely the subject of our genes and environment, entirely buffeted by forces beyond any control, is not a rational or maximally positive view of the world. Some people have it harder or easier, sure. But that's about the end of it.

I completely agree with this, but "healthy and positive" is different from being true. Didn't mean to start up a giant debate though (the sterilisation derail was bad enough jfc), was just honestly surprised

In theory people are assets to society, not liabilities. In practice they are some of both.

In the practical case of people being some of both the problem for those who are liabilities is both social (society) and the individual.

Rather than paying for sterilization, if we create as level a playing field as is morally justifiable and have the correct incentives I think virtually all the individual problems will disappear.

People are inherently good and amazingly capable. Just not all of us. But no one wants to be lazy, no one wants to be poor. Many are just resigned to their fate because a capitalist structure that is millennia old is baring down on them.

And its oppressive. They feel the weight and for many either their ancestors, or themselves to this day are being treated unfairly.

How do you all think the Federal Reserve system (and especially its recent policies) are affecting the ancestors of former slaves in Ferguson MO?

Why don't we fix that kind of **** first. Then we can not talk about sterilization.


Hitler >> gas chambers and Jews
Some of this forum >> sterilization and poors

Too strong a comparison for you? Then get a clue.

Hitler >> Volkswagons (mainstream car for the good of the people pushed on moral grounds)
Musk>> Model Ys (mainstream car for the good of the people pushed on moral grounds)

This just isn't true. It's the difficulty of effort that's bearing down on them. There is no one who works hard and well - at any job including physical labor - who doesn't have kids out of wedlock and who spends and saves wisely, who is not at least middle class rich, in a capitalist system.

I can't say much now, I got to run. But I want to clarify, I am not against capitalism. But because of history...those in an advanced capitalism system (with entrenched interests) who are born without capital or access to it find it very hard to move up socially.

In a certain sense, I am not sure the cost benefit justifies the hard work. I literally just drove through Ferguson the other day. I looks like a war zone. Or Hammond IN (Horseshoe Chicago)...

You're asking whether it's true, or whether it's something we should dishonestly teach people?

You're being unrealistic if you don't think people with crap lives come to this way of seeing reality on their own. It's about as common as it is for people who live great lives to espouse the virtues of an internal locus of control. People will believe what they want to believe.


Through rational self interest. That's the whole point of a capitalist economy.

Maybe you don't tell children this from day 1, but we're not discussing how to raise children - we're discussing how to deal with the aftermath.


Compensating ugly people only seems crazy because being ugly doesn't come close to registering on the top 10 list of injustices that people deal with.

Do you think compensating military personnel who're maimed in combat is crazy too? Or should we let them wander the streets for spare change?


You may not have had a fun childhood but it sounds like a kind of upbringing that you'd expect would lead to high achievement.

Forget about the impact of their education on your IQ... their familiarity with the educational system in combination with having so much time on their hands I'm sure helped you navigate that world. We can debate all day the causal relationship between IQ and achievement - but clearly there're plenty of people with high IQ genotypes out there who're duds, and it's generally because of lack of guidance.... the same thing that sinks people with low IQ genotypes.

Of course people who believe in the "locus of control" have better jobs or whatever; humans are naturally delusional and self-absorbed, so of course successful people will trick themselves into thinking they "chose" to accomplish what they've done instead of recognizing their superior resource advantage from the start.

No, i didn't say that. Don't jump to conclusions. The rest of your post assumes i said that, so i didn't respond to the other stuff.

This is simply false when we look at reality.

Asians have risen from terrible poverty and the aftermath of destructive wars to build robust, successful civilizations. Both in their home countries and in countries they immigrated to as peasants, as racially abused and ostracized minorities. The same is true of Jews. Clearly, your statement is false.

Cultures that believe in an internal locus of control - Asians are the strongest believers of this - crush everyone else, including the dominant wealthy race. While coming from far behind.

What we should be teaching, then, is internal locus of control, and mocking cultures that don't follow it (mostly the underachieving socialist minded cultures).
Beauty is one of the top 3 most important traits for all kinds of success, and the top trait for some kinds of success. It is more advantaging than high socioeconomic status.
What sinks people with low IQ genotype is their low IQ.

My outs (as someone with greater than 110 IQ), include:

- Government jobs
- Engineer jobs
- Coding jobs
- Management jobs
- Starting a business and succeeding
- Finding intelligent friends and being able to maintain their interest
- Much more

The outs of someone with an 85 IQ to improve their socioeconomic status, include:

- Laboring really hard
- Winning the looks lottery to marry up
- Dealing drugs & pimping
- Stealing

That's it, really. You could give these guys tons of confidence and money and 95 out of 100 wouldn't change their life in any way, or become any more useful to society. Intelligence is the limiting factor. All you can teach these people is to work hard - the opposite of the "handicap" philosophy.

You can sit around the campfire singing koombya for another hundred years hoping it will end up that way, but it hasn't happened before and given the complexities of the modern world it's even less likely to happen now.

We don't have the resources to hold peoples hands the whole way. By the time children are admitted into the system it's almost too late, and social workers can't do all that much. Do you know any social workers? It's amazing the level of neglect that some children in ****ty communities deal with. By the age of 10 there's already no hope for a lot of them - they're way too far behind the curve to compete academically. Of course everyone stays hush hush about that because they're worried it'll discourage them from doing anything in life, but frankly it's better they find out early so as not to waste 5-10 years of their life chasing academic credentials that will get them nowhere. These are the people unsuccessfully pursuing arts degrees. There're tons of them.

Do you also object to sterilizing the mentally challenged? They manage to reproduce too in the absence of an effective parental figure. Freedom **** yea!

You're not even consistent with your own beliefs - is it their culture, or is because of their genetics? African immigrants from specific countries have done quite well too. Immigrants from other asian countries have done quite poorly. Maybe because the demographics of people who are coming here and their reasons for coming are completely different?


In large part because it's correlated with being of good 'genetic health' which overlaps strongly with intelligence, longevity, resistance to illness and even how much love they get from their parents. For people who're just plain ol' fashioned ugly it's not nearly as big of a deal.


No, you're conflating expressed intelligence with the heritable component.

It's amazing how self serving all of your attitudes and beliefs are.

I'm not conflating anything.

How on Earth are my beliefs self serving? It makes me worried that Asians are more intelligent (given that China has a lot in common with Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 20x the population - another group with above average intelligence) and it makes me sick that certain subcultures are less intelligent. It means a lot of potential social problems going forward, and stronger and stronger class structures developing as the less intelligent can no longer even work to improve their lot.

Of course I'm consistent. You're being too obtuse to separate out the separate threads.

It's both. Cultures and individuals that have an internal locus of control in them beat other cultures in movement up the socioeconomic ladder. If you have both internal locus of control and higher intelligence, it's gg.

The US is currently such that hard stupid work will get you at least a middle class life. This is the out for people with a low IQ. It won't be like that for decades longer; stupid work will soon start dying out and becoming less valuable.

I would say being born with high intelligence is the single biggest factor in determining success in the modern world.

You've faced challenges growing up, yes? Imagine how screwed you would be if you weren't intelligent. If you were born in rural China with the same situation as now, you'd be ****ed.

In the dice roll of life, there are essentially 3 things that will determine your life outside of pure luck (lottery) - intelligence, family situation, country. You got 2 out of 3. I would trade intelligence and country for being born a Saudi prince or a British Royal, I think all of us would, but you surely wound up in a spot most human beings would kill for.

What you do with it is up to you.

Back to the matter at hand though... Is there a good reason why assuming it has relatively negligible cost (the people still producing will be VERY productive... surely we can just produce a little more for the less useful members of our populace) we shouldn't just give everyone a lower middle class UBI and have the only people who work be the people who want to work?

I know I'd work no matter what. I'd be bored out of my goddamned mind if I didn't. I can't stop posting on 2p2 because I need it to fill time when I don't have any actual work to do!

Why would you be bored if you had immersive, real-as-life virtual worlds to explore, populated by real humans if you wanted that? I cannot imagine boredom in such an incredibly rich and varied life.

It would be nice to login to a VR, instantly be at the tailor, experience the fabrics (touch and feel), have a fitting, checkout. VR retail is going to be huge imo with or without ubi.

The possibilities are endless once it looks like real life (a decade?). It'll be a huge industry, from retail to education to virtual offices to living second lives in fun interactive sims. Fully immersive VR worlds are akin to humans becoming Gods. I don't think some people realize how it will transform the world. As long as we survive AI, our future is living incredible lives in virtual worlds. Not that many decades way.

This is not true. In Cuba there are trained engineers and doctors who drive cabs because it pays better. Literally a tip from one of us for a cab ride is more than their daily salary as a doctor.

I pay a lot in taxes. Not enough to stop working, but enough to change my behavior. I am moving to a different township due to it. Why wouldn't that apply to my work if it got high enough?

Not trying to single you out here, just bringing up food for thought.

I'm looking forward to the virtual sex, honestly.

Just saying.

I really disagree with this. A person's appearance and attractiveness means a lot more than people admit.

I think people who are average or above in attractiveness really have no idea what it's like to be ugly as dirt. For a lot of ugly people, it's all-consuming and permeates every part of their lives.

Sorry, stopped reading halfway through Jason's post. Seems like a long post amounting to someone complaining about the invention of bulldozers because now a bunch of people out in the fields with shovels will be unemployed? Not sure if thread is serious. A society evolving and becoming more productive to remove labor is a good thing - not bad.

It's self serving in that your entire world view is based around the belief in your own superiority. It's why you rant and rave about all sorts of things that you know almost nothing about.


I've already agreed that there's overwhelming evidence to suggest that there is a heritable component to IQ. It's just that every other conclusion you've drawn is flimsy conjecture.

I am not going to hope for it to happen. I am going work towards it happening. As frankly, I think everyone should. This may be controversial but in so far as there are objective morals I think we have a moral imperative to make the world a better place.