Eugenics
#21
Potential confounding factors in the realm of #Eugenics, from most to least confounding:

1. The Greater Male Variability Hypothesis

2. Matriarchial-line domination of inherited intelligence

3. Mean-regression (potentially; I'm unclear if this is a function of social arrangements or a hard function of biology)

4. Using the tools of husbandry as they stand on a sentient population (Alien Sex had something to say contra this IIRC).
#22
(4 hours ago)rockies Wrote: 1. The Greater Male Variability Hypothesis

I think this a non-issue. You simply need to set the absolute bar lower for women than men. Let's say, as a hypothetical, that the IQ bell curve for women has a σ of 10, whereas that for men has a σ of 20, for a population-wide σ of 15 (averaging sigmas doesn't work this way, but whatever). A 110-IQ woman can thus be considered as having a "latent male IQ" of 120, which will reliably manifest in her sons and brothers if the father is of similar genotypic IQ.

(4 hours ago)rockies Wrote: 2. Matriarchial-line domination of inherited intelligence

This is a big problem because of the war-bride / Mestizification impulse - the individual male drive to propagate one's own genes along with inferior maternal lines. Tantum lists this as one of the potential factors behind the browning of Aryan India:

Quote:A more realistic theory is sexual selection. Under Vedic law, a Brahmin who was willing to take wives of a lower caste could have four times as many wives (and presumably, four times as many offspring) as one who only wanted a Brahmin woman.  Acquiring, and having large families with, four women is no easy task; those with a stronger attraction to non-Aryan women were presumably the most energetic polygamists and had the most children. This would spread attraction to non-Aryan physical traits widely in the Indian population, which would then lead to positive sexual selection for those traits.

(4 hours ago)rockies Wrote: 3. Mean-regression (potentially; I'm unclear if this is a function of social arrangements or a hard function of biology)

Both, though it's unclear which component is more influential in a modern context. Our  society is an IQ-shredder, but so is the process of sexual recombination:

[Image: https://i.ibb.co/HGNV4Hp/image.png]

Mean-regression doesn't make it impossible to settle the population at a new mean; just that the process will be subject to some "back-sliding", moreso the more extreme the shift. With embryo selection and full-genome sequencing of prospective couples you could probably halt it entirely.

(4 hours ago)rockies Wrote: 4. Using the tools of husbandry as they stand on a sentient population (Alien Sex had something to say contra this IIRC).

Here's "Alien Sex", for those who want to read it.

I think this is the biggest issue of them all, owing to its inexplicability. Why have we been unable to break the species barrier with artificial selection? Why do all our domestic animals rapidly regress to wild-type as soon as selection is relaxed? What imperceptible "secret sauce" does natural selection impart on population-genomes that allows them to sustain wildly divergent means? I suspect a vast network of invisible genes and local optima... the shadow strings by which Nature contorts us into our evolved shapes. This also implies a great latent potential in the act of splicing a wholly "unnatural" genome.


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Human Verification
Please tick the checkbox that you see below. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)