The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Dysgenics was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This page was
proposed for deletion by
WhatIsAPoggers (
talk ·
contribs) on 9 October 2020. It was contested by JavaHurricane ( talk · contribs) on 2020-10-09 |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 200 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Liophidium.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Sock drawer. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Uninvolved editors, do you think any of the content from my edit here [1] should remain? Also, take a look at @ Generalrelative's other 29 deletions of user contributions on this page: [2]. The majority of the stable version page was deleted in this string of edits, which improved aspects the article and removed poor content, but also deleted reliable, sourced information in an apparent POV-push: [3] BooleanQuackery ( talk) 01:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC) My edit was the inclusion of some of the content previously discussed for inclusion here: [4]. You can find diffs of a sampling of Generalrelative's more large and sketchy deletions/edits below, many of which are apparent POV-pushing: https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1090815213 https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1090801488 https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1063390653 https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1063364997 https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1063362586 https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1063361299 https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1063605866 BooleanQuackery ( talk) 19:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
|
@ Generalrelative hi, can we discussed your reasons for the revert as the infromation is cited FuzzyMagma ( talk) 15:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
FuzzyMagma ( talk) 15:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)It is possible that advanced civilized society is dependent on there being a sufficiently large fraction of intellectually talented individuals. Currently it seems that there is a negative correlation in some places between intellectual achievement and fertility. If such selection were to operate over a long period of time, we might evolve into a less brainy but more fertile species, homo philoprogenitus (“lover of many offspring”). However, contrary to what such considerations might lead one to suspect, IQ scores have actually been increasing dramatically over the past century. This is known as the Flynn effect; see e.g. [51,52]. It’s not yet settled whether this corresponds to real gains in important intellectual functions. Moreover, genetic engineering is rapidly approaching the point where it will become possible to give parents the choice of endowing their offspring with genes that correlate with intellectual capacity, physical health, longevity, and other desirable traits.
Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.I've now added an independent secondary source to the sentence discussion Lynn. His book is prominent enough (unfortunately) that it needs to be mentioned. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
discussed in independent sourcesusing ref. 5 but that does mean that ref. 6 which talks about the topic is not deemed as
discussed in independent sourcesas this will give the illusion that you want a reference for the reference when summarising someone opinion, which is different from wanting an opinion that
discussed in independent sourcesto comment on the referenced opinion
The "Assortative mating and differential fertility by phenotype and genotype across the 20th century" is quoted as a source to the claim that "genetic studies show no evidence for dysgenic effects". This seems to be the only genetic study cited, although I am not entirely sure what is meant by the word genetic here.
However, the study does not make such claim. It simply claims that the dysgenic effect has not accelerated.
"Thus, although there may be positive selection on height and slight negative selection on additive measures of the genetic architecture of education, these are not accelerating"
One cannot simultaneously claim that:
A. Cognitive ability is partly genetic
B. Those with high cognitive ability having fewer offsprings has no effect on how widespread genes associated with cognitive ability are
Environmental improvements can offset or slow down the impact of such dysgenic trends, but that does not mean that such dysgenic trends do not exist.
2A00:23C5:E31B:4801:E9B9:6E10:89E9:4658 ( talk) 11:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC) 86.140.248.145 ( talk) 09:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
There is no convincing evidence that any dysgenic trend exists. . . . It turns out, counterintuitively, that differential birth rates (for groups scoring high and low on a trait) do not necessarily produces changes in the population mean.Generalrelative ( talk) 19:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Dysgenics was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This page was
proposed for deletion by
WhatIsAPoggers (
talk ·
contribs) on 9 October 2020. It was contested by JavaHurricane ( talk · contribs) on 2020-10-09 |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 200 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Liophidium.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Sock drawer. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Uninvolved editors, do you think any of the content from my edit here [1] should remain? Also, take a look at @ Generalrelative's other 29 deletions of user contributions on this page: [2]. The majority of the stable version page was deleted in this string of edits, which improved aspects the article and removed poor content, but also deleted reliable, sourced information in an apparent POV-push: [3] BooleanQuackery ( talk) 01:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC) My edit was the inclusion of some of the content previously discussed for inclusion here: [4]. You can find diffs of a sampling of Generalrelative's more large and sketchy deletions/edits below, many of which are apparent POV-pushing: https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1090815213 https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1090801488 https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1063390653 https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1063364997 https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1063362586 https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1063361299 https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1063605866 BooleanQuackery ( talk) 19:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
|
@ Generalrelative hi, can we discussed your reasons for the revert as the infromation is cited FuzzyMagma ( talk) 15:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
FuzzyMagma ( talk) 15:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)It is possible that advanced civilized society is dependent on there being a sufficiently large fraction of intellectually talented individuals. Currently it seems that there is a negative correlation in some places between intellectual achievement and fertility. If such selection were to operate over a long period of time, we might evolve into a less brainy but more fertile species, homo philoprogenitus (“lover of many offspring”). However, contrary to what such considerations might lead one to suspect, IQ scores have actually been increasing dramatically over the past century. This is known as the Flynn effect; see e.g. [51,52]. It’s not yet settled whether this corresponds to real gains in important intellectual functions. Moreover, genetic engineering is rapidly approaching the point where it will become possible to give parents the choice of endowing their offspring with genes that correlate with intellectual capacity, physical health, longevity, and other desirable traits.
Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.I've now added an independent secondary source to the sentence discussion Lynn. His book is prominent enough (unfortunately) that it needs to be mentioned. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
discussed in independent sourcesusing ref. 5 but that does mean that ref. 6 which talks about the topic is not deemed as
discussed in independent sourcesas this will give the illusion that you want a reference for the reference when summarising someone opinion, which is different from wanting an opinion that
discussed in independent sourcesto comment on the referenced opinion
The "Assortative mating and differential fertility by phenotype and genotype across the 20th century" is quoted as a source to the claim that "genetic studies show no evidence for dysgenic effects". This seems to be the only genetic study cited, although I am not entirely sure what is meant by the word genetic here.
However, the study does not make such claim. It simply claims that the dysgenic effect has not accelerated.
"Thus, although there may be positive selection on height and slight negative selection on additive measures of the genetic architecture of education, these are not accelerating"
One cannot simultaneously claim that:
A. Cognitive ability is partly genetic
B. Those with high cognitive ability having fewer offsprings has no effect on how widespread genes associated with cognitive ability are
Environmental improvements can offset or slow down the impact of such dysgenic trends, but that does not mean that such dysgenic trends do not exist.
2A00:23C5:E31B:4801:E9B9:6E10:89E9:4658 ( talk) 11:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC) 86.140.248.145 ( talk) 09:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
There is no convincing evidence that any dysgenic trend exists. . . . It turns out, counterintuitively, that differential birth rates (for groups scoring high and low on a trait) do not necessarily produces changes in the population mean.Generalrelative ( talk) 19:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)