Talk:Dysgenics

reverted edit

@Generalrelative hi, can we discussed your reasons for the revert as the infromation is cited FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The point of enhancement and dysgenics is central to Nick Bostrom work, see his work Talk:Nick Bostrom#Support of "enhancements" and "genetic engineering" FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

In section 5.3 “Dysgenic” pressures, of the cited work he writes 5.3

It is possible that advanced civilized society is dependent on there being a sufficiently large fraction of intellectually talented individuals. Currently it seems that there is a negative correlation in some places between intellectual achievement and fertility. If such selection were to operate over a long period of time, we might evolve into a less brainy but more fertile species, homo philoprogenitus (“lover of many offspring”). However, contrary to what such considerations might lead one to suspect, IQ scores have actually been increasing dramatically over the past century. This is known as the Flynn effect; see e.g. [51,52]. It’s not yet settled whether this corresponds to real gains in important intellectual functions. Moreover, genetic engineering is rapidly approaching the point where it will become possible to give parents the choice of endowing their offspring with genes that correlate with intellectual capacity, physical health, longevity, and other desirable traits.

FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, see my comment below. Bostrom seems to be pushing a WP:FRINGE POV here, so the we should be handling it per WP:FRIND and WP:ONEWAY. Generalrelative (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, your statement that genetic studies have shown no evidence is demonstrably false and misleading. 96.230.59.83 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

See, for example: The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence and Cognitive Neuroscience(Cambridge University Press, 2021), An Introduction to Statistical Genetic Data Analysis (MIT Press, 2020). Neither of these sources are even remotely WP:FRINGE 96.230.59.83 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I saw that. However any mention would have to be in a secondary source that is independent of Bostrom per WP:FRIND. And even if we had such a source, it would need to be prominent in order to overcome the general principle of WP:ONEWAY. (Honestly, the same thing could be said about the bit discussing Richard Lynn here, though I imagine that such sources could be found to support inclusion for Lynn.) I hope that makes sense. Generalrelative (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I kinda get what you mean. I am assuming you are trying to avoid original research and interpretations especially for such controversial topic like this. I am glad you noticed the Richard Lynn inconsistency in your argument but I will leave it as it is. Thanks FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue is not WP:OR but rather WP:FRIND: Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. I've now added an independent secondary source to the sentence discussion Lynn. His book is prominent enough (unfortunately) that it needs to be mentioned. Generalrelative (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@GeneralrelativeNick Bostrom work on this is far more insidious to say the least, and quoted alot! That paper that I have referenced has been cited over 800 times mostly favourably, he also referenced it when he apologised for using the N-word. He used to to push back on the use of the word eugenics "as the term is commonly understood" as he loves to talk about Dysgenics and "human enhancement"

and by that definition, here what I added about Dysgenics was what is discussed on an independent source, i.e., Nick Bostrom. Reference 6 in the article is Lynn perspective, you can add a separate comment that discussed in independent sources using ref. 5 but that does mean that ref. 6 which talks about the topic is not deemed as discussed in independent sources as this will give the illusion that you want a reference for the reference when summarising someone opinion, which is different from wanting an opinion that discussed in independent sources to comment on the referenced opinion

I kind question your interpretation for the WP:FRIND, BUT I understood from the moment I saw the article that was put for GA and the current version that someone systematically reduced this article from a scientific debate to pseudoscience, which I support regardless of the policy. However, I would have appreciated if someone made similar efforts to what was done on Climate change#Denial and misinformation or Eugenics#Controversy over scientific and moral legitimacy.

Just to be clear, I am not putting the burden on you to fix Wikipedia. Stay safe FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I've read your comment three times and I'm afraid I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. For instance I simply *quoted* WP:FRIND to you, which is not an interpretation. Nor is the language of that guideline ambiguous in any way. We can certainly mention Bostrom's fringe views provided we have reliable sources sources independent of him demonstrating that they are notable. Feel free to provide such sources if you'd like to see him mentioned in this article. Generalrelative (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Source cited incorrectly

The "Assortative mating and differential fertility by phenotype and genotype across the 20th century" is quoted as a source to the claim that "genetic studies show no evidence for dysgenic effects". This seems to be the only genetic study cited, although I am not entirely sure what is meant by the word genetic here.

However, the study does not make such claim. It simply claims that the dysgenic effect has not accelerated.

"Thus, although there may be positive selection on height and slight negative selection on additive measures of the genetic architecture of education, these are not accelerating"

One cannot simultaneously claim that:

A. Cognitive ability is partly genetic

B. Those with high cognitive ability having fewer offsprings has no effect on how widespread genes associated with cognitive ability are

Environmental improvements can offset or slow down the impact of such dysgenic trends, but that does not mean that such dysgenic trends do not exist.

2A00:23C5:E31B:4801:E9B9:6E10:89E9:4658 (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)86.140.248.145 (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Turns out one can, and in fact it is population genetics 101 that heritable differences between individuals do not redound to group-level differences. As Ulric Neisser summarizes in one of the four (!) sources cited for the "no evidence" claim: There is no convincing evidence that any dysgenic trend exists. . . . It turns out, counterintuitively, that differential birth rates (for groups scoring high and low on a trait) do not necessarily produces changes in the population mean. Generalrelative (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

As I pointed out, one of the studies makes no such claim, but actually accepts negative selection on additive measures of the genetic architecture of education but simply points out it has not accelerated. Also, Persons argument that Neisser is summarizing is based on assumptions that are not widely accepted by other researchers in the field. It was also made before the existence of quantitative genetics that has proven this beyond reasonable doubt.

Or do you dispute the findings of the following study for example?

″Epidemiological and genetic association studies show that genetics play an important role in the attainment of education. Here, we investigate the effect of this genetic component on the reproductive history of 109,120 Icelanders and the consequent impact on the gene pool over time. We show that an educational attainment polygenic score, POLYEDU, constructed from results of a recent study is associated with delayed reproduction (P < 10−100) and fewer children overall. The effect is stronger for women and remains highly significant after adjusting for educational attainment. Based on 129,808 Icelanders born between 1910 and 1990, we find that the average POLYEDU has been declining at a rate of ∼0.010 standard units per decade, which is substantial on an evolutionary timescale. Most importantly, because POLYEDU only captures a fraction of the overall underlying genetic component the latter could be declining at a rate that is two to three times faster.″ 86.140.248.145 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Ref quote

Biohistorian15 has twice now removed a quote within a reference on the grounds that it contains incomplete citations.[1][[2] It's unclear to me, even after they cited Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations in their revert of my revert, that this is disallowed. But even if it is, why not just replace the citations with ellipses? The quote is clearly helpful to the reader. Further, Biohistorian15's suggestion that I put it in my own words makes no sense since this quote is within a reference, and we do not offer paraphrasing within references, only direct quotes. Generalrelative (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I have rewritten dozens of paragraphs I originally wanted to use blockquote on over at the eugenics article for this exact reason. Please do the same. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you may not even realize that this isn't a blockquote. Have you not even looked at the article? Generalrelative (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Why would the procedure be different in this case? It might well be true, but I have never seen incomplete APA-style citations being used like this on WP whatsoever. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Since this appears to be a MOS question, I've started a thread over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Generalrelative (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that the matter appears to have been settled over at MOS: in cases like this we simply omit the inline citations and add a note to the ref saying "Citations in original omitted." Generalrelative (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Disputed content (June 2024)

I invite Generalrelative to specify their reasons for disagreeing with the transclusion. One sensible solution might be to add sources relating these phenomena more directly to dysgenics in the respective sections...? Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, specifying sources relating the transcluded text to eugenics would be necessary for inclusion, per e.g. WP:SYNTH. Simply put, the edit in question looked to me to be indiscriminate and WP:UNDUE, though the WP:NOR angle is also concerning. Generalrelative (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I will re-write the respective sections as to reflect this intuition indeed shared by various researchers.

One question: assuming it were to satisfy these guidelines very well, would you object to an additional transclusion from "fertility and intelligence"? Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The proof will be in the pudding. Any additions to this article that comply with P&G are welcome. Generalrelative (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)