The wisdom of discussing eugenics on twitter

[plodder]

You lot are talking about the wrong thing. Cummings hired this guy because of these views, they aren't things that came to light afterwards.

According to this person, anyway:

https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status ... 2929880064

Cummings would of course disagree, and summarises his "Odyssean Education project" in an old article on his own blog. Scroll to the bottom for his footnote on genetics and intelligence:

https://dominiccummings.com/the-odyssean-project-2/

Cummings also links to some blogs who offer independent commentary on whether Cummings is a bit beyond the pale or not. I thought this article was quite thoughtful:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magaz ... oz-k5FGc0M

On the whole, although he appears to be an angry sh.t, I'd imagine I'd probably be an angry sh.t too if I had to work in Whitehall, so I kind of get that element of it, even if the rest appears petulant, opaque and a bit Yes and Ho! to me.

[jimbob]

Dawkins seems to love arguing but never is much good at understanding why people disagree with what he's saying.

And his communication is sometimes just *wrong* even when he's discussing evolution. For example, his insistence on natural selection being described as not random would imply that humanity was "the peak of evolution", when the KT impact was merely one of the most extravagant incidents that utterly changed the path of evolution.

Sorry jimbob, I'm not following you.

How does natural selection being non-random imply that humans are the pinnacle of anything? Humans are no more the product of natural selection than anything else (possibly slightly less due to the relaxation of certain selection pressures).

Also, the existence of random events in *evolution* doesn't mean that *natural selection* is random - selection is just one of many evolutionary forces. It seems a bit of a stretch to define the KT impact as a selection event.

What I would say is that Dawkins tends to overemphasise the importance of selection versus random processes in evolution. He gives the impression that evolution is a highly optimised process, when in reality selection only occurs within tightly constrained parameters. Which, again, really comes down to ignoring context.

Probably a bit of a derail and it involves a couple of inferences that do people tend to draw from such assertions.

If natural selection is non-random, then the course of evolution was set with the first unicellular life, and "obviously" has been "working" towards this moment, when humanity as the most advanced organism (YMMMV) is thus the pinnacle of 4-billion years of evolution.

Also, the existence of random events in *evolution* doesn't mean that *natural selection* is random - selection is just one of many evolutionary forces. It seems a bit of a stretch to define the KT impact as a selection event.

I'd argue that any extinction event is by definition a major selective event.
Depending on what individuals were where defined which individuals survived. If the asteroid hit twelve hours earlier or later, then those sleeping burrowing animals that were most likely to have survived the initial global firestorm from the re-entry of the ejecta burning up in the atmosphere and transferring the heat all round the Earth would have been a completely different population.

The rest I agree with - but probably stronger than you as I'd say that as well as simple random events*, some individual mutations can alter the whole fitness landscape for their holders and the other organisms in the ecosystem - for example Citrate+ metabolism in the Long Term Evolution Experiment and this is in a very simple environment. In more complex ecosystems, and especially with parasites/pathogens/hosts there would be lots of such one-off mutations randomly tilting the selective pressures.

Also, as you say

What I would say is that Dawkins tends to overemphasise the importance of selection versus random processes in evolution. He gives the impression that evolution is a highly optimised process, when in reality selection only occurs within tightly constrained parameters. Which, again, really comes down to ignoring context.

From what I've seen, maybe it's his communication style, but he almost seems to veer into the teleological explanation - "organisms evolved to" because of the inevitability of the selective pressures, rather than "their ancestors/descendants evolved these traits because".

I think that Malthus alone shows that even if a particular mutation might theoretically have a ridiculously high impact on reproductive success it would still be unlikely to survive the first generation.

It gets really silly with something like the sunfish, where a hypothetical mutation that occurs in one egg which makes it a thousand times more likely to survive to adulthood still means that egg has a less than 1:150,000 chance of survival (if my maths is correct, given that the population is roughly stable and the female produces up to 300-million eggs at a time, and assuming they live longer than one spawning)

*e.g. the Toba eruption seems to have come close to wiping out humanity about 75,000 years ago

[Stephanie]

I wrote a blog here: https://thingssamthinks.wordpress.com/2 ... ecoupling/

Which Angela Saini has shared :)

https://twitter.com/AngelaDSaini/status ... 96738?s=19

[raven]

Cummings would of course disagree, and summarises his "Odyssean Education project" in an old article on his own blog. Scroll to the bottom for his footnote on genetics and intelligence:

https://dominiccummings.com/the-odyssean-project-2/

I had a look at that the last time we had a thread about Cummings. Not the condensed blog version, the original 237 page essay.

I didn't get very far into it, but I could see what he was trying to do -- pull lots of interesting ideas from disparate disciplines together and come up with solutions to all societies problems. That's great and all, but I got the distinct impression that it involved a lot of shallow, surface knowledge, not much in-depth understanding, and, given the whole point seemed to be educating leaders so that they can lead better, not a lot in the way of practical suggestions on how you'd deliver that sort of education.

Also a bit too in love with the power of maths to solve absolutely everything for me.

[cvb]

Guardian article

Guardian article about Cummings and eugenics.

[lpm]

In Singapore they got single graduates to go on free cruises, with intention it would lead to pair bonding and the breeding of cleverer offspring.

It was part of a whole thing, intended to address the fact that the higher educated women are, the fewer children on average. They claim to have increased the number of marriages and children, but it's probably impossible to say if any additional children have been born, plus many of these graduates would probably have married other graduates anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_De ... nt_Network

This very mild form of eugenics happens routinely - there's not much cross-breeding between PhDs and dole scum. Even though it's impossible to strip out the dominance of environment - two graduates will likely be a much richer family - is there any evidence that DNA is also involved? If not, why not?

I've always said hopes of England winning the world cup rest on a proper breeding program. Beckham's three sons failed at football, despite being given the highest possible standard of football training (Arsenal youth program etc). That is because of wasted breeding with a scrawny pop singer star. We need to breed the England men's team with the women's team, then extract offspring and shove them into a uniform environment. Worth a try? In 20-30 years time it would provide good evidence of whether eugenics is possible or not, with relatively few people forced into arranged marriages and compulsory breeding.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Prof Richard Ashcroft, a medical ethicist at City University, called Cummings’ ideas “cargo cult science”

something of a bittersweet symphony, that.

[Tessa K]

Oh and I forgot reversion to norm.

[tenchboy]

Prof Richard Ashcroft, a medical ethicist at City University, called Cummings’ ideas “cargo cult science”

something of a bittersweet symphony, that.

bump!

[murmur]

Guardian article

Guardian article about Cummings and eugenics.

Cummings is one of those wazzocks from a non-science background who reads a couple of pop science books or articles and thinks, "This is a piece of piss, got this lark sussed" without any hint of an understanding of how he got there nor what it really means nor how to spot problems in methods and stats.

At least he's not as bad as local aristo, climate change denying, coal selling "journalist" and former zoologist Matt "Where's my brain?" Ridley...

And half-arsed classicists like Johnson have no starting point for just how big a wazzock a Cummings or a Ridley actually is.

[jimbob]

Guardian article

Guardian article about Cummings and eugenics.

Cummings is one of those wazzocks from a non-science background who reads a couple of pop science books or articles and thinks, "This is a piece of piss, got this lark sussed" without any hint of an understanding of how he got there nor what it really means nor how to spot problems in methods and stats.

At least he's not as bad as local aristo, climate change denying, coal selling "journalist" and former zoologist Matt "Where's my brain?" Ridley...

And half-arsed classicists like Johnson have no starting point for just how big a wazzock a Cummings or a Ridley actually is.

I'd say it's a specific genre of pop-science books. For example I'd lay money on him having read "Blink" (not that I have read it to critique it, just that sort of thing would fit right in with his idea for "superforecasters"). Also probably "Atlas Shrugged".

There's a whole subgenre of anarcho-capitalist science fiction and a lot of Cumming's ideas seem influenced by that.

[murmur]

Guardian article

Guardian article about Cummings and eugenics.

Cummings is one of those wazzocks from a non-science background who reads a couple of pop science books or articles and thinks, "This is a piece of piss, got this lark sussed" without any hint of an understanding of how he got there nor what it really means nor how to spot problems in methods and stats.

At least he's not as bad as local aristo, climate change denying, coal selling "journalist" and former zoologist Matt "Where's my brain?" Ridley...

And half-arsed classicists like Johnson have no starting point for just how big a wazzock a Cummings or a Ridley actually is.

I'd say it's a specific genre of pop-science books. For example I'd lay money on him having read "Blink" (not that I have read it to critique it, just that sort of thing would fit right in with his idea for "superforecasters"). Also probably "Atlas Shrugged".

There's a whole subgenre of anarcho-capitalist science fiction and a lot of Cumming's ideas seem influenced by that.

Oh yeah, he just has to have read Gladwell and thinks it's all the real deal.

Ayn Rand is a given for that class of wazzock...All that time wasted when he could've been reading Sartre or Genet or Italo Calvino...Even Enid f.cking Blyton...

[Martin_B]

I've always said hopes of England winning the world cup rest on a proper breeding program. Beckham's three sons failed at football, despite being given the highest possible standard of football training (Arsenal youth program etc). That is because of wasted breeding with a scrawny pop singer star. We need to breed the England men's team with the women's team, then extract offspring and shove them into a uniform environment. Worth a try? In 20-30 years time it would provide good evidence of whether eugenics is possible or not, with relatively few people forced into arranged marriages and compulsory breeding.

Given the reported high proportion of homosexuality in top female sportswomen, I can foresee some issues with this programme.

[greyspoke]

Would that not represent an opportunity? They may still want kids and it would be easier to choose an appropriate biological father.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Also, are female footballers more educated than male footballers? They may not be but I really wouldn't be surprised if they were.

[lpm]

I've been demanding my football breeding plan for years.

Yet NOTHING has been done.

I suppose it proves the famous old adage: it you want to forcibly breed a race of ubermenschen you have to do it yourself.

[secret squirrel]

Socrates has entered the chat.

[Tessa K]

I've been demanding my football breeding plan for years.

Yet NOTHING has been done.

I suppose it proves the famous old adage: it you want to forcibly breed a race of ubermenschen you have to do it yourself.

A guy at my gym is the son of a professional footballer. He said his dad always pushed him to be a footballer but he got injuries and now he's doing post doc research into bio markers in Huntingdon's disease.

You'd think that people who studied classics or any humanities would at least have learnt how to construct a logical argument.

I have read Blink. All I remember of it was that there was a small idea there that had been padded out with a lot of not-quite-science. That's often the case with pop science/self improvement books, especially by Americans, some small bit of common sense that we already know and a lot of look how clever I am.

[plodder]

Suggest people read Cumming’s blog and note the number of references. He might be over extrapolating but he’s not blagging to the extent you’re characterising and he is a genuine agent of change with a genuine sense of direction.

[bob sterman]

Suggest people read Cumming’s blog ... he is a genuine agent of change with a genuine sense of direction.

You could say that about a lot of people - and not in a good way.

[plodder]

Yes, that's right. But to understand what, how and why people need to step up from "read some pop-science fiction", or they're going to be caught on the hop.

[Tessa K]

Suggest people read Cumming’s blog ... he is a genuine agent of change with a genuine sense of direction.

You could say that about a lot of people - and not in a good way.

This is why people in power need to listen to experts - real ones.

[rockdoctor]

This very mild form of eugenics happens routinely - there's not much cross-breeding between PhDs and dole scum. Even though it's impossible to strip out the dominance of environment - two graduates will likely be a much richer family - is there any evidence that DNA is also involved? If not, why not?

I was on the dole for the end of my PhD, and for a while afterwards. So was my girlfriend. We have reproduced, thricely, bwahahahah

[Tessa K]

This very mild form of eugenics happens routinely - there's not much cross-breeding between PhDs and dole scum. Even though it's impossible to strip out the dominance of environment - two graduates will likely be a much richer family - is there any evidence that DNA is also involved? If not, why not?

I was on the dole for the end of my PhD, and for a while afterwards. So was my girlfriend. We have reproduced, thricely, bwahahahah

I have a PhD and haven't spawned. Sorry, I've let you all down.

[sTeamTraen]

I wrote a blog here: https://thingssamthinks.wordpress.com/2 ... ecoupling/

Which Angela Saini has shared

https://twitter.com/AngelaDSaini/status ... 96738?s=19

"Sorry, that page doesn't exist"... did she get grief for sharing EPD's blog?