Thursday, July 6, 2017

- Let's Talk Eugenics

Let’s try a little thought experiment. I’m not advocating it per se, I’m just tossing it out there to think about. And it springs from a discussion with my daughter about the most free and egalitarian way to impose eugenics. Up to now our best idea was to make seatbelts illegal and set the legal drinking age at 15. But obviously that was mostly a joke, and will have very random results. So think about this:

50% of lifetime success can be explained by IQ. High IQ equals high chance of success in any career. The next factor which can successfully predict lifetime success is conscientiousness. High conscientiousness equals success, and is about half as predictive as IQ. The third factor, again with half the strength of the previous factor conscientiousness, is tendency toward neuroticism, though in this case, in an inverse way. Low neurotic response explains a meaningful portion of lifetime success.

This makes perfect flawless sense, and can be applied in your own life. Think of the most successful people you know. They will all be higher in intelligence and conscientiousness, low in neuroticism. So what do we do about it?

How about something like this. We test everyone, and based on the cumulative results of those tests, you can only enter career tracks which indicate a relatively high chance of success for you – say the top 25%. Everyone gets the same test, no favorites, and you can retest at any time. After a retest, you can change your career path, but not to any hierarchy that doesn’t indicate that you have a chance of success.

If this rule were adopted it would be totalitarian, of that there is no doubt. But, it would provide the low end of the IQ spectrum with reasonable and realistic goals, and give them a chance of succeeding in the private sector. All success is relative after all. The average American today lives considerably better than king Henry II, arguably the richest and most powerful man alive in his day.

There is also an issue of changing the distributions over time, since if all the people who took up the law were likely to be in the top 25%, then the next group would need to be in the top 25% of the top 25%. So maybe there is a better, less totalitarian way to address it.

The people at the bottom will be making less money. That’s a hard and fast law (supply and demand) so there is no escaping it. So suppose you reward them with tax credits (taken from the top 5%) for choosing a career within the domain of their potential, based on the results of the tests? The person with an IQ of 85 can still be a lawyer or physicist, and so long as the testing results are kept secret, they can still have an equal chance at succeeding based on their output. But they'd have a much higher chance of success if they tried to be plumbers or carpenters. And we should reward them for being realistic.

The wildcard of course, would be women. All women, 100%, would prefer a mate in the top 10% of men. Not all are that attractive, but it won’t stop women from using ready access to meaningless sex as a lure. This is the Feminist doctrine. It’s a way for less attractive women to use socially acceptable means to strive for higher status men and does this by removing the sociological constraints. That’s what a ‘slut walk’ is. It’s unattractive women stripping down to try to lure a man of higher status, and smashing the social stigma in the process.

And to my knowledge there is no hard and fast way to determine which women will be ranked as the most appealing to the top 10%. One buddy of mine is a breast man. Another really likes the long spender legs of the ‘model’ type. I prefer small girls. There is a great deal of variance.

But if you could find a way to limit women from using sex as a trap for higher status men… say a reliable and reversible male birth control method, then we’re all set. We stem the likely violence of the bottom rung of society, and still provide equality of opportunity, giving everyone the incentive to achieve success.

Just a thought. I’m interested in other ideas.

No comments: