User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 114

  1. #41
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Heh. The question of whether trends in intelligence track with trends in populations with genetic commonalities is a valid arena for scientific inquiry, but politically untouchable... the potental for abuse of such research is positively mind-boggling.

    In fact, it's undiscussable in polite company.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Shimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    SEXY
    Posts
    1,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Heh. The question of whether trends in intelligence track with trends in populations with genetic commonalities is a valid arena for scientific inquiry, but politically untouchable... the potental for abuse of such research is positively mind-boggling.

    In fact, it's undiscussable in polite company.
    That's why I want it researched. I hat it when bigots get in the way of progression.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    No. Eugenics isn't science, it's social policy.
    Like the above mentioned racial intelligence, there's a scientific and a sociopolitical side to it. Eugenics is the social side, but saying I support genetics research to improve the human race doesn't sound as provoking.
    (removed)

  3. #43
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimmy View Post
    That's why I want it researched. I hat it when bigots get in the way of progression.
    A supporter of eugenics who hates bigots?
    It never fails to amaze me how people are able justify their beliefs...

    Like the above mentioned racial intelligence, there's a scientific and a sociopolitical side to it. Eugenics is the social side, but saying I support genetics research to improve the human race doesn't sound as provoking.
    Were you trying to provoke then? Why don't you just say what you mean? And that still isn't science - you have an agenda: "improving the human race". That's political.
    Genetics is the science. And I don't think you'll find its study controversial.

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    In fact, it's undiscussable in polite company.
    That's why you should discuss it here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  4. #44
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FalseHeartDothKnow View Post
    This thread might be becoming kinda hurtful to people, I understand that this is a controversial topic for some people, but I'd really like to keep the peace here if at all possible, sorry to sound like a pain
    It's not controversial as long as people contribute actual data, rather than masquerading personal preferences as data. (And even personal preferences are fine to discuss, if declared openly as such.)

    If the supposition of the OP is disproven by contributed data, so be it.
    If the supposition of the OP is proven by contributed data, so be it.

    As Morgan said, "Basic research should preoccupy itself with what is and why it is, not what should be or how people might react to what is." Ding ding ding!

    I'm not sure why the topic has to be controversial at all, if we remember that.
    We're just discussing documented studies done in regards to quantified androgen impact on developing fetuses.

    EDIT: Eugenics? Things gets curiouser and curiouser.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #45
    Senior Member Shimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    SEXY
    Posts
    1,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    A supporter of eugenics who hates bigots?
    It never fails to amaze me how people are able justify their beliefs...

    Were you trying to provoke then? Why don't you just say what you mean? And that still isn't science - you have an agenda: "improving the human race". That's political.
    Genetics is the science. And I don't think you'll find its study controversial.
    I'm not at all in favour of eugenics in the form of limiting peoples choices with regards to who they are allowed to procreate with. I am however in favour of the possibility of establishing what hereditary traits a child is likely to get and be able to use this information in choosing to have kids, or what partner to get the kids with.

    To quote James D Watson the discoverer of the structure of DNA:
    People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great
    Please note that I don't actually go around telling people which traits are desirable and which are not. This is what eugenics is usually abused for, and I agree it's a socio-political agenda rather than science.

    EDIT: Eugenics? Things gets curiouser and curiouser.
    I like a bit of controversy and I thought this thread wasn't having enough of it yet.
    (removed)

  6. #46
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimmy View Post
    I'm not at all in favour of eugenics in the form of limiting peoples choices with regards to who they are allowed to procreate with. I am however in favour of the possibility of establishing what hereditary traits a child is likely to get and be able to use this information in choosing to have kids, or what partner to get the kids with.
    So you're saying it's a way to empower individuals to make decisions that suit them, rather than ways to control a population according to the agenda of whoever is in power at the time.

    People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great.
    "But if everyone is pretty... no one is." (paraphrased from The Incredibles)

    Please note that I don't actually go around telling people which traits are desirable and which are not. This is what eugenics is usually abused for, and I agree it's a socio-political agenda rather than science.
    Typically. Aside from "pure health" reasons, science is about what is and how it works, while deciding what is "preferable" or "ideal" is a values judgment.

    EDIT: I gotta run but we might split this thread later, it's just a matter of finding the right "split point" for the thread.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #47
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Transhumanism > Eugenics.
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



  8. #48
    Senior Member Shimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    SEXY
    Posts
    1,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    So you're saying it's a way to empower individuals to make decisions that suit them, rather than ways to control a population according to the agenda of whoever is in power at the time.



    "But if everyone is pretty... no one is." (paraphrased from The Incredibles)



    Typically. Aside from "pure health" reasons, science is about what is and how it works, while deciding what is "preferable" or "ideal" is a values judgment.

    EDIT: I gotta run but we might split this thread later, it's just a matter of finding the right "split point" for the thread.
    It can and has been used as a means to control a population according to the agenda of whoever is in power at the time. I see the risk of it happening, but I still prefer for humanity to have this knowledge. I addition to admitting the possible abuse of genetic knowledge I'd like to say that holding back scientific discoveries from the general public, or in the worst cases even spreading a technophobia amongst the people, has also been used to control populations in the past and I think nobody can decide objectively whether the knowledge is more dangerous when it's made public or held privately.

    I haven't said anything about a standard for 'pretty'. Not all girls have to look the same for them to all be 'pretty'. And then there's still the element of personal taste, which ensures that not all girls will always be thought of as pretty by all guys.

    I hope you don't think that I think that making people prettier is a primary goal of genetic research. For me making sure that people are free of genetic diseases is a far nobler goal, but when we're at it, I see no harm in learning ways to fine-tune those little things as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentMind View Post
    Transhumanism > Eugenics.
    Yes, transhumanism is a better term to explain my point of view.
    (removed)

  9. #49
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,486

    Default 2D:4D Ratio

    MORE FORTHCOMING....



    WOMEN (Should have a ratio of about 1)

    LOW 2D:4D RATIO

    • More masculine
    • Higher prevalence of homosexuality
    • Higher prevalence of lefthandedness
    • Greater physical prowess
    • Higher prevalence of autism


    HIGH 2D:4D RATIO

    • Very feminine
    • Higher prevalence of breast cancer
    • Higher fertility
    • Better linguistic ability


    MEN
    (Should have a ratio of about .96)


    LOW 2D:4D RATIO

    • Higher prevalence of homosexuality
    • Larger average penis size
    • More fertile
    • More physically aggressive / dominant
    • More athletic
    • Better in mathematics
    • More musically inclined
    • Higher prevalence of autism
    • Higher prevalence of osteoarthritis
    • Higher prevalence of prostate cancer


    HIGH 2D:4D RATIO

    • Better linguistic ability
    • Lower fertility
    • More prevalence of early heart attack
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  10. #50
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,486

    Default



    My ratio is .90
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Similar Threads

  1. Finger length and testosterone
    By meanlittlechimp in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 04-29-2009, 02:15 PM
  2. 4d?
    By Nocapszy in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-16-2009, 11:18 PM
  3. What's you read:post ratio?
    By ajblaise in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 10-05-2008, 01:59 AM
  4. E/I Ratio
    By Sling in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-04-2008, 01:04 PM
  5. Analytic Skills & Finger Length
    By Recluse in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10-29-2007, 12:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO