I think once IVF + polygenic embryo screening/prediction becomes broadly used to aid in selecting healthier people, we will see the results swing in favour of things like selecting for intelligence.
So young liberal Asian men from half of the "cradles of civilization"? And that their religious tendencies (Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, "materialism") are opposed to Buddhism, Hinduism, and Protestantism?
P.S. The autodidacts may have a point in this, and that eugenics are specifically a "tight" (low openness) and "collectivist" (low emotional stability) cultural trait as the stereotypical "farmer" (high pro-social traits). Might need to refine the culture map in relation to personality factors though. https://the-big-ger-picture.blogspot.com/2022/08/the-evolution-of-western-culture-and.html
Rather depressing results. If you are enhancing a person and causing harm to no-one, then it's beyond me why anyone would oppose it. I was surprised that opposition was so strong in Japan. Maybe if people were more educated on heredity they would be more supportive of enhancement. But at any rate I do not believe that genetic editing for intelligence is anywhere near; the trait is too polygenic and the genes are highly pleiotropic. The easiest way to improve an additive trait like intelligence is through selective breeding.
For Japan, the hypothesis would be that their stated preference is different from their behavioral preference, seen through mating selection and likelihood of selective child abuses.
a huge pattern that jumps out at me from the first graph is that countries with more unequal innate human capital are more favorable towards biotech. India, Brazil, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and Russia are way more unequal than the median country on the list.
Eh. I wouldn't put too much stock in this polling one way or the other. You could probably get any answer you want by focusing on different aspects of eugenics or by phrasing the q differently. The reality is that the tech is coming and once in wide use will be universally respected.
I'm also not sure about the narrative you describe in terms of left and right wing. True, Sanger type progs were pro eugenic decades ago, but a more recent and current effect = Leon Kass type conservatives who don't want to mess with Nature and God's Plan.
Positive vs negative eugenics would be a good starting point. Positive genetics are more likely to be a Protestant, Dharmic, or Taoist trait (virtue-oriented individual behavioral change), whilst negative eugenics are more likely to be a Roman Catholic, Islamic, or Legalist trait (centralized governance with the usage of power).
> Given some equal environment, imagine this is 100.
If it is the loaded term Indian vs French, the IQ basis is already different (~80 compared to ~100). The problem with this line of thought is that other genetic factors, like personality, will have positive effect in so far as there is genetic diversity, or there is some kind of beneficial heterophily.
It is likely traits of other Catholic beliefs are genetically correlated to both "pickiness" and conscientiousness, in a "selectivity starts not at copulation" kind of way. Weirdly enough this could relate to eugenics through mating selection, which Catholics should be fond of as picking people who are pious.
I think once IVF + polygenic embryo screening/prediction becomes broadly used to aid in selecting healthier people, we will see the results swing in favour of things like selecting for intelligence.
What does 0.70 logits mean here? logit(0.7) = log(0.7 / (1 - 0.7)) = log(2.333) ≈ 0.847
It maps 0.7 to 1 on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logit, whatever that means.
Probability of supporting eugenics mapped on age. But would it map *any* age to a probability of 0.7?
And 1 logit maps to a huge range of values...
So young liberal Asian men from half of the "cradles of civilization"? And that their religious tendencies (Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, "materialism") are opposed to Buddhism, Hinduism, and Protestantism?
If by Lewis' model of culture, then they are most likely the ones who are "multi-active", or emotionally sociable and non-meritocratic and non-principled types. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-lewis-model-2013-9 https://en.empowerment-coaching.com/post/cultural-types-the-lewis-model
P.S. The autodidacts may have a point in this, and that eugenics are specifically a "tight" (low openness) and "collectivist" (low emotional stability) cultural trait as the stereotypical "farmer" (high pro-social traits). Might need to refine the culture map in relation to personality factors though. https://the-big-ger-picture.blogspot.com/2022/08/the-evolution-of-western-culture-and.html
Rather depressing results. If you are enhancing a person and causing harm to no-one, then it's beyond me why anyone would oppose it. I was surprised that opposition was so strong in Japan. Maybe if people were more educated on heredity they would be more supportive of enhancement. But at any rate I do not believe that genetic editing for intelligence is anywhere near; the trait is too polygenic and the genes are highly pleiotropic. The easiest way to improve an additive trait like intelligence is through selective breeding.
For Japan, the hypothesis would be that their stated preference is different from their behavioral preference, seen through mating selection and likelihood of selective child abuses.
a huge pattern that jumps out at me from the first graph is that countries with more unequal innate human capital are more favorable towards biotech. India, Brazil, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and Russia are way more unequal than the median country on the list.
Eh. I wouldn't put too much stock in this polling one way or the other. You could probably get any answer you want by focusing on different aspects of eugenics or by phrasing the q differently. The reality is that the tech is coming and once in wide use will be universally respected.
I'm also not sure about the narrative you describe in terms of left and right wing. True, Sanger type progs were pro eugenic decades ago, but a more recent and current effect = Leon Kass type conservatives who don't want to mess with Nature and God's Plan.
Positive vs negative eugenics would be a good starting point. Positive genetics are more likely to be a Protestant, Dharmic, or Taoist trait (virtue-oriented individual behavioral change), whilst negative eugenics are more likely to be a Roman Catholic, Islamic, or Legalist trait (centralized governance with the usage of power).
> Given some equal environment, imagine this is 100.
If it is the loaded term Indian vs French, the IQ basis is already different (~80 compared to ~100). The problem with this line of thought is that other genetic factors, like personality, will have positive effect in so far as there is genetic diversity, or there is some kind of beneficial heterophily.
As with contraception. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/09/28/4-very-few-americans-see-contraception-as-morally-wrong/ 8% of Catholics in 2016 see contraception as morally wrong, but the church is very clear on the matter (Onan story).
It is likely traits of other Catholic beliefs are genetically correlated to both "pickiness" and conscientiousness, in a "selectivity starts not at copulation" kind of way. Weirdly enough this could relate to eugenics through mating selection, which Catholics should be fond of as picking people who are pious.