Taking sides: Children vs. (non-human) animals

filial piety is a theory on how to build a good society

it's a lot more common in the eastern world (asia) and sommers brings in a more western style because it's not as common in the us/canada

that text is just a part of it

Aimless otm

I mean, you don't want society's scum, idiots, or cripples reproducing, right?

enough about the aristocracy

mordy that's just nonsense lol

u can't say such things without even backing them up

but i guess there are ilxors naive enough to gobble it up

Let's all reflect on the gorgeousness of Wilf the Whippet instead of going down a bad rabbit hole.

https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/17218378_10154181326271949_6948274833910745913_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=50a9e1bf25fb986bd182eb1cc6870fd9&oe=596C1F9A

By gar, it's an old-fashioned eugenicizing, it's been a while

mordy that's just nonsense lol

u can't say such things without even backing them up

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18837613
http://darhiv.ffzg.unizg.hr/446/

in practice, eugenics always selects genes based on 'demonstrated fitness', not from examining anyone's genes. being poor, illiterate, or physically handicapped in any way is considered a prima facie proof of your unfitness. I mean, you don't want society's scum, idiots, or cripples reproducing, right?

― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Monday, March 20, 2017 10:00 AM (six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

very true! i guess we would need to first have a literacy rate of 100%

For global score, father - offspring correlation was .09 and statistically not significant, while mother - offspring correlation was significant, r =.22, which yields estimate of 44% for the upper limit of h". The regression of offspring on midparent score was .30.

so we should probably only test moms

mordy

you have to purchase that article, which i won't

reading the abstract, their sample size is a total of 449 people, 213 of them monozygotic twins (ie more probability of shared characteristics, iirc)!

both are less than .50

methodology is also not accessible which is what the test hinges on

this proves very, very little

monozygotic twins are how you do heritability studies for that very reason obv

like u realize "more probability of shared characteristics" is precisely what i'm saying is so and what you are so strenuously denying on the basis of nothing but that you don't want your eugenics plan to be contingent on heritable measurables?

wait why are there an odd number of twins

213 pairs

why would you only test monozygotic twins?

uh selection bias much?

i tried googling for monozygotic/identical twins and couldn't get a rate for usa, but this site (not sure how reliable) says 3.5 out of every 1000

how would you be able to generalize with any significance given the figures of the link you provided?

http://www.twinstwice.com/twins.html

well this has been productive

i'm talking about testing heritability from parent to child

ok here's how it works -- you want to know how much something is hereditary vs environmental. so the best way to do it is find 2 ppl who are basically exactly alike and, especially if you can find sets that have vastly different environmental backgrounds, you then compare their various attributes. so if there's a high level of correlation that suggests that the thing you are testing for is hereditary. you seem to actually understand this because you understand that monozygotic twins are likely to share the same attributes, but you seem to be missing the consequence of that. if they are more likely to share an attribute that means that attribute is hereditary and not environmental.

it's hard to comment on this study because i don't have access to the methodology they used

but just the basic fact that this sample size is nowhere near to 1000 people is very problematic

where it's supposed to be the highest (mono-z twins), hereditability rates were even less than .5, anything less than that is a toss up

so you're arguing that EI is *not* hereditary, but that we should still test parents on it? that makes sense.

rmde @ this derail

here's the full paper: http://www.psycometriclaboratory.xentricserver.com/adminsdata/files/Emotion%20(2008)%20-%20TEI.pdf

The combined strength of the family and twin designs allows us to draw several conclusions. First, there are considerable genetic influences on trait EI, predisposing individuals to higher or lower scores. Nevertheless, as is the case for the Big Five, most of the phenotypic trait EI variance (which includes measurement error) is accounted for by nonshared environmental effects (e.g., experi- ences outside the family). The impact of nonshared environment on global trait EI ranges between 58% and 68%, according to the twin and family design, respectively. Second, the fact that the family aggregation estimates were lower than the heritability es- timates supports the view that the similarity of family members is mediated genetically and not environmentally. On the whole, these results are consistent with the hypothesis of negligible shared environmental influence on the trait EI population variance.

so you're arguing that EI is *not* hereditary, but that we should still test parents on it? that makes sense.

― Οὖτις, Monday, March 20, 2017 10:41 AM (five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes! it's measuring capability not genetics

thanks mordy will have a look

yes! it's measuring capability not genetics

but if its not genetic why would you assume it's transferable to children?

i never assumed that

i was engaging in a discussion with mordy about that because that is what *he* said

basically from that paragraph tho there are two problems for your theory: a. that there's a high genetic component which has unfavorable optics and b. that even within environmental impacts the shared environmental effects (experiences within the family) have a negligible footprint on IQ compared to experiences outside the family, which is to say that developing healthy emotional humans has very little to do w/ the parents' provided environment and to the extent that parents have anything to do w/ the kid's IQ it's primarily genetic.

sorry IQ = EI

i never assumed that

then... why do you care if parents have it? if it has no bearing on the kind of children they'll produce? make sense, man!

because it is an indication of their own moral/ethic capability, which yes, i assume, they would be able to teach to their children if they have these capabilities

lol i'm tryin! just it's a topic that involves a lot of in depth reading, not just casual conversation on a thread

my original comment about a 'test' was that a parent should have enough moral/ethical capabilities to be able to teach their own kids to be normal, productive, determined adults in society

maybe scratch normal, i agree that word is complex and has a lot of problems

which yes, i assume, they would be able to teach to their children if they have these capabilities

category error

fair enough

but i think it is a theory that is on the right track

but i think it is a theory that is on the right track if implemented would probably be close to a humanitarian disaster

fixed

Life is a humanitarian disaster stop abrogating our responsibilities

yr a humanitarian disaster

mordy so two beefs with the pdf you linked (not necessarily about ethics/morality but getting in murky waters here)

With respect to trait EI theory, the finding that a substantial proportion of the construct’s variance is heritable has two important
implications. First, speculation about the determinants of emotional “intelligence” will now have to take into account the fact that one of the strongest predictors of adolescent trait EI is actually parental trait EI. In combination with the temporal stability that the construct shows even in children (Mavroveli, Petrides, Shove, & Whitehead, in press), this suggests that training and intervention programs, currently popular in educational and business settings, are unlikely to be more successful in changing trait EI than they have been in changing personality more generally (Costa & McCrae, 1986; Norlander, Bergman & Archer, 2002).

maybe i'm about to open a can of worms, so if you don't agree with the conclusion, that's fine, but there's a boy in my family who was diagnosed with autism at a very young age (i want to say 2, but my vague understanding is that he had to be a certain age for the specialist to confirm it). specialist said that if he was enroled in a lot of classes (cognitive, behavioural, etc., not sure what they are called technically) for it, it would improve his diagnosis. anyway, he did attend those classes. fast forward a few years and he looks and sounds like just about a normal boy. if i wouldn't know he had autism, it would be very difficult for me to tell. i have no evidence except this one anecdotal experience, but my point is that i believe it wasn't just classes, but his family that helped too. so, what your pdf concludes goes against these types of programs that clearly work for some, and would be good enough to keep around

and i would like to see the questionnaire the study used, because it does show testing for limited personality traits:

Of course, the main shortcoming of this argument is the absence of an established personality inventory from the research design, which prevents us from examining the phenotypic and genetic correlations that are key to deciding this issue (but see Vernon et al., in press).

lol oustic

used to yr hyperbole bud

EI in general is ime an incredibly flakey field fwiw, even in comparison to notoriously flakey IQ studies.

sociology and psychology are not all bad

everything is bad

and it's getting worse

EI only a cut about anything related to the arts or humanities as a field of study

had a little too much corned beef friday

that may have been bad for me

so glad we replaced the conversation about having kids as a necessary cost of keeping a good fuck-buddy handy with a conversation about weeding out unsuitable stock

look I did what I could but there are only so many Genes

getting back on track
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/GeneColan6.13.09ByLuigiNovi.jpg/220px-GeneColan6.13.09ByLuigiNovi.jpg