I have a friend who has a 501(c)(3) that makes really nice documentaries about people with Down syndrome, focusing on the positive influences they have on other people in their lives. They're on YouTube. Here's one I watched recently:
"In Iceland, upwards of 85 per cent of women elect to have prenatal testing, and close to 100 per cent of pregnancies where Down syndrome is diagnosed are terminated.
Denmark isn't far behind, with a termination rate of 98 per cent."
Well this guy obviously is an outlier. Same as no down population has people that have exceptionally high and exceptionally low IQ, so does the down population.
Mean IQ is 46.6. To be able to reasonably work 2 jobs, you need to be in 85-99 IQ, which unfortunately for people with down syndrome is very uncommon. I completely understand parents decision to not have baby that in 95% of cases will not be child to take care of itself when the parents are gone.
People end up romanticizing Downs syndrome because they only see the well functioning people with Downs. There are unfortunately a lot of them that are suffering hidden away at home and in institutions because they are severely sick and unable to function in daily life.
This is never a joint decision, definitionally. The consent form has a single signature. I don't disagree that the real world involves people in complex relationships typically having conversations - but there is precisely one decision maker and so shall it ever be.
Fundamentally applying "disapproval" to either party without complete context is stupid, but I doubt that'll stop people doing what they do
In the US, there is a very vocal minority that really, really doesn't like abortion.
Some of them actively publicize that people with Down's lead happy, healthy, and independent lives, without significant support. (As we see Gabe does in the article.) They generally stay away from the moral debate.
For people who follow the abortion debate in the US, when people say "as long as it's not used for Eugenics," what they really mean is that they are ok with abortion as long as it's not used to abort Down's fetuses.
I think in my head, I have difficulty reconciling people having different judgements about abortions for (broadly defined) lifestyle reasons vs "eugenics".
Of course, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate. It covers a ratio from 0.00001% to 49.9999%, so is in no way a useful word on its own. It's usually only used to influence people (as in this case, where it can be read as 38% being insignificant). Real numbers should be used, instead.
Stop trolling: "a very vocal minority that really, really doesn't like abortion" is very different than people who think it should be illegal.
I'm referring to people who pray outside of abortion clinics, put up gravestones for aborted fetuses, sponsor billboards, ect, ect.
It's an important aspect of American culture, and provides context to a possible anti-abortion agenda of the article, and contrast to Icelandic pro-abortion culture.
Then be clear and specific, and don't require everyone to guess. You are referring to an entirely negligible portion of the population, with no political weight, but phrased it as something significant. Again, "minority" is not useful for the exact reason demonstrated.
I think it's more about living in a more homogeneous, more secular, more progressive, and generally more prosperous country than it is about the climate.
So, it's progressive to terminate the mentally ill? Seems like it would be a slightly different axis, since history shows it's a vector not purely aligned with the "progressive" label.
It's progressive to mitigate avoidable suffering, and not just for the mentally ill but also for those who will be negatively affected by the mentally ill. Progressivism isn't just blindly trying to make everyone happy, because that doesn't work. It's about not relying on dogma for making the best decisions for society.
Obviously it's easy to argue if terminating a pregnancy is the same as killing someone, but I'm willing to just give that to you since it seems like that's your position. But even then, sometimes people do have to die for what's best for society. Forcing people to give birth to a child they don't want and who will have a difficult life is certainly not a better policy than just avoiding all of that with an abortion, even if you want to consider abortion a bad thing. Sometimes you have to pick between two bad things, and it's certainly a progressive position to acknowledge this in order to pick the lesser bad thing.
> but I'm willing to just give that to you since it seems like that's your position
I'm not sure where you get this from. I stated, with very simple wording, that I don't think that terminating the mentally ill is related to being progressive, with an example demonstrating why. I'm not trying to communicate anything, other than what I wrote.
> But even then, sometimes people do have to die for what's best for society.
This is, literally, the reason the Nazis terminated the mentally ill [1], and is a framing that is not in line with progressivism at all, which would be more about personal choice.
Because that's what this entire discussion is about?
You do get that we're not talking about killing living people, right? At least if you're willing to say that an abortion isn't a living person, hence why I assumed that was your position lol
To be clear: I don't think it's progressive to round up mentally ill people and "terminate" them. I never said that. Nobody here is saying that. That's not what is being discussed in this thread by anyone.
>This is, literally, the reason the Nazis terminated the mentally ill
Sure, and it's also the reason we allow cops to use deadly force when necessary, or allow the military to kill enemy combatants, or, in some places, allow people to commit suicide in humane ways. It turns out, sometimes, someone dying is the best choice for society as a whole. It's not a pleasant reality, but it's inescapable.
Again, "progressivism" doesn't mean "only ever do things which are universally accepted as being good," it just means to make progress in the human condition through reforms aimed at increasing positive liberty [1]. That doesn't mean "don't ever ever kill anyone because it's bad to kill and makes people sad :(".
But, again, we're talking about abortion here. I'd love for you to explain how the right to abortion, for any reason, is actually not a progressive idea.
Unfortuna another documentary about people with Down Syndrome were more heartbreaking. A young girl got told from a doctor that not only shouldn't she get to try pregnant, the chance is very low already and that she has other medical concerns she needs to handle.
Not something she could handle without a proper care taker though.
Downs syndrome is indeed highly heterogeneous, one of the sadder aspects is the accelerated dementia specifically Alzheimer's.
I've known a few people with Dawn's syndrome and the striking often abrupt and rapid tragectory is shocking.
As much as the slow decline of dementia that it's often incidents months apart before things fall apart. Is sad.
So is it in people with Downs syndrome when at 35 their often bright and cheerful life loving demeanor seems to vanish over the course of a few months.
As I understand it it's because chromosome 21 carries the genes associated with Alzheimer's so they get an extra copy, but also structure issues with the brain, increased risk of sleep apnea and other toxic conditions.
Your argument was not that it's bad for an average person with Down syndrome to have children. It's that they "absolutely shouldn't try to get pregnant, they'll be incapable of looking after the child." My response is that your argument, stated in this extreme way, is factually incorrect.
"Not all car crashes are the same. People sometimes live because they weren't wearing a seatbelt."
The point of these statements is to make an outlier appear as if it is part of the norm. They're bad statements to make, because at heart they are just misleading.
> The point of these statements is to make an outlier appear as if it is part of the norm
Please don't lie about what I wrote. I explicitly said that 117 was "the highest measured IQ of a person with Down syndrome." My own comment says that it is an outlier.
> They're bad statements to make, because at heart they are just misleading
Please note the context of my comment, which was somebody saying that people with Down syndrome are "incapable of looking after the child." I pointed out that this does not apply to all people with Down syndrome, which is not misleading; it's correct.
TBH, I'm not sure what the purpose of your comment was, other than to start a moronic fight that does not need to be fought by lying about what I actually said. I'm not interested in having that fight.
Right, and there are people who live in car accidents because they didn't have on a seatbelt.
But no one counters "You should always wear your seatbelt" with "Some people have lived because they didn't have one on". It's a meaningless statement that doesn't change anything about the original statement.
To add a factoid without expressing an opinion: women with Down syndrome are often fertile while men typically are not. The odds of the offspring of a female with trisomy 21 having the same trisomy are 50% theoretically, and between 33-40% in practice due to trisomy embryos having a higher rate of spontaneous miscarriage.
As a molecular biologist I would almost want to investigate if somehow the total expression of, or accessibility of this man's third Chromosome 21 is somehow reduced because this person seems to be very close to normal (2xchr21) humans on the normal to severe Down syndrome -spectrum. I have seen people with 2 times 21 with a more Down syndrome-like face than this man's even.
Taking advantage of this post to encourage others to look for volunteer opportunities in your area.
Growing up my mom worked closely with children/young adults with disabilities so I was exposed to people with down syndrome from a very young age and I am so incredibly grateful for that. Today I just try my best to keep her work going.
One of the things I like is the article really gets through the facade into understanding who Gabe really is. It doesn't focus on quirks, and instead humanizes Gabe.
I know a guy with down syndrome (kid of my parents' friends) and I would have to say he is the happiest person I know. Anytime I see him, he gets a huge smile on his face. He walks over to me and asks me how I am doing. He is such a friendly and cheerful guy. I saw his mom scold him for being disruptive and he got a frown for like 10 seconds and then he returned to being the happiest guy around. To be able to always be that happy is a goal so many of us fail to achieve.
He appears to have a rather mild form of down syndrome.
Now - Down Syndrome is typically called trisomy 21, that
is, you have three copies of chromosome 21 when normally
people have two copies of each chromosome, excluding XY
in regular males (2n = 46 in humans, the diploid
state; naturally females would have XX, whereas humans would normally have XY, unless there would be a genetic change leading to a different ploidy state here as well; normally those with Down Syndrome have regular XX or XY condition for that chromosome, only chromosome 21 has a +1 higher count). If you, however had, look at as many examples as
possible for people with Down Syndrome, you notice a huge
range of differences here. That is, some are affected by
the condition a LOT; others have an almost normal life,
compared to perhaps average to a bit below average "regular"
humans. I also noticed something similar for the progeria
disease. Now, progeria is much more problematic and severe
than Down syndrome; but there is a huge range of people
with different symptoms here. Adalia Rose had a severe
variant and did not survive past age 15, whereas Tiffany
Wedekind has a less severe variant (but also exercises a
lot and tries to keep healthy, despite already facing
significant health problems, at age 48 this year now).
So we see a huge pleiotropy of different genetic conditions.
In most cases exercises, activity and mental mood improves
things, but there are hard caps and limits. For instance,
Adalia could not have done as Tiffany did, simply due the
genetic status being different. It reminds me of the movie
Gattaca (now almost 30 years old) - it's a bit slow and a
bit over-drama, but has great actors and an even greater
take-home message aka "The Underdog who never gives up".
Good to have seen it at the least once, too.
I have two people in my extended family with Down Syndrome. It's not the "bro" version that Shane Gillis talks about or the TV-friendly version like on Life Goes On.
They are both severely impaired, nonverbal, and demand constant attention. I only see them a few times per year and even within those isolated windows, I find it exhausting.
Some of the stuff would sound cute if done once or twice, but when it's every 2-3 minutes all day long... it's hard.
I'm not Downs but I have a personality disorder such that I've always felt different. I'm 60 now and yet to meet anyone, M or F, who seems remotely like me. I was married, didn't end well, and have a daughter who doesn't talk to me. I live every day bathed in the knowledge that I am utterly alone in the world, despite having 2 close female friends. It has always been this way. It will always be this way. I try to live a quiet secluded life.
(I'm guessing "no" but a lot of recognized conditions have huge variance in individuals, so having a recognized personality disorder also isn't a guarantee that there will be others with a similar mindset...)
More importantly, I wish you peace and happiness. It's a difficult hand to be dealt...
Many individuals also have more than one personality disorder. I have a partner with bipolar + borderline + OCPD and a bunch of other stuff. I have a fair few too (borderline and OCPD at least).
Based on a hunch, GP may potentially find similar minds on 4chan
It's definitely not for me, or probably most of HN, but I used to know someone who thought similarly, and they found 4chan helpful. My mention of it was a personal suggestion, not an endorsement.
As for plurality, it is quite fascinating indeed <3
Well - many people with a personality disorder don't even have kids, so perhaps you did something better than these; or, different, if better does not serve here.
I would not want to give any advice to anyone about their own personal lives, but surely the story you show here must be incomplete. Unless your daughter never spoke to you to begin with.
Even for people without any disorder, communication is not always trivial - some find it easy, others find it hard. For me it is hugely difficult to do small-talk and fake-talk. My brain does not work like that. Whereas if something is interesting, I can talk and listen easily.
I can't speak for the commenter, but many people (arguably, most?) manage to work around their differences to fit into society, if not make a relationship work for at least a while (see also "masking").
But anecdotal (friends, family, colleagues, myself), these coping mechanisms aren't permanent; masking constantly once you're living with someone else is pretty much impossible, fatigue/burnout kicks in often in people's 30s, and a lot of coping mechanisms people learn as kids are no longer effective or desirable as adults (often known as neuroses). Then there's attachment issues, also picked up as children. These may apply to everyone, but they're exacerbated for people with personality disorders, mental health issues and/or neurodiversity.
Figuring out what are "built in" / genetic / medical conditions, unhealthy coping mechanisms or trauma responses is a long journey that a lot of people are going through.
"On the spectrum," here. My mother knew, when I was kid, but never told me. I had to find out, the hard way, in my 40s.
Made me a damn good coder, though.
No one ever told me I was "different." They just kept ghosting me, and shunning me, all my life.
If I had known then, what I know now, I wouldn't have taken it so personally, and wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars, trying to fix something that can't be fixed.
I was lucky enough to know that all I need is presence in my life. I don't really care for interaction or romance.
Remember that having children, getting married, living a fulfilling life is just the status quo and not the path your life has take. Be or do whatever makes you happy as long as you're not harming others.
Might be a bit late, but it's all about the ride and leaving something behind for others to enjoy is a nice extra.
Sometimes when I read resignations like this, I think "who hurt this person, what did they do to feel so shut out?" Then I wonder random possibilities like if the hurt stemmed from a series of escalating misunderstandings or dramas.
One side of my in-law's family works like an extended soap opera. Multi-generational siblings forming cliques where one clique won't talk with/hate-with-a-passion the others for up to a decade then suddenly the ice thaws and they are all raucous friends again and then whole new cliques form over some drama. One family member takes this idiocy especially hard and has now self-excluded from the entire family, we will probably never hear from them again. I liked that guy, sad to see him go!
I know this is probably rather annoying advice to be given, but if you haven't already, you should talk with a therapist. You don't have to be sad to see a therapist.
Thoughts in your own head can erode very deep grooves in your mind that only direct more thoughts in the same direction. Letting someone look in and simply point out those tracks is theraputic on it's own even if it's easy to dismiss talk therapy as simply just talking.
Reality is just whatever your brain synthesizes from your senses, and that means you're never perceiving any sort of objective reality. We often think we know where those grooves are so we can avoid them, despite the fact that we're standing in deepest part of the proverbial canyon and simply pointing at scratches on the rockbed. We're predisposed to think in grooves we often think in, and our perception of reality resets to reflect that pattern.
A good therapist won't challenge "I am utterly alone in the world", because that's one of those scratches you already know "feels like a sad thought" when you think it. You have a lot of proof that it's true, but I'd bet you still recognize it as something hurtful to think about. Instead, they'd want to figure out what the last scratch was that deepened the floor of the canyon. Some thought/belief that you knew was hurtful and then was proven to be reality to you. Anyone can do that with you (friend, family), but a therapist requires no emotional reciprocation because you're paying them. It's worth it.
It's absurd is being told you are different dismissively and not constructively. It's easy and convenient to dismiss people based on their needs, but true value lies in including everyone meeting them where they are.
What am I, your chatgpt? I'm in for constructive criticism and for a debate but I won't materialize this just so people can pick on my poorly choosen examples.
> But because he has Down syndrome, someone told him he’s different.
Yes, and him being different (in a negative way) is a statement of fact. One shouldn't be going around shouting this into the faces of people with Down's, but we as a society have to stop pretending low IQ is something to be celebrated or disregarded in people.
Low intelligence as an attribute (not the unfortunate person saddled with it) ought to be universally stigmatised and we should be doing our best to eradicate it from the population. That certainly doesn't mean we should go out of our way to disrespect or dehumanise stupid people to their faces, but there has to be some sort of policy nuance in both treating them with respect while also calling a spade a spade and acknowledging that certain traits and conditions would be better off not existing in the population.
I don't know why people don't understand this, but something being true doesn't mean it can't also be hurtful, and it doesn't mean it has to be said. Gabe clearly already knows that he is different; there's absolutely no point in telling him this, other than to hurt him.
I look at it through my parenting lens. You can’t just ignore it. You have to prepare them for a harsh world where they will constantly hear it, feel it, and possibly worse. I’d feel my role would be to fully acknowledge it, overly embrace it, almost to a theatrical level. This would be privately in the home and while they’re young but the idea is to make them understand their difference has lots of benefits/positives to it. It’s kind of a super power. So they have a positive self image and relationship with their difference before they have to deal with the external stuff. Then, of course, they’ll still get upset when a name caller or bully confronts them but you can lean on the foundation of this is just who you are and who you are is awesome. It still hurts ofc but that’s inevitable in this world, how you respond is controllable. Someone simply vocalizing a fact shouldn’t ruin their day if they’ve been properly “coached” to have the fortitude.
I agree with your comment in general, except this one point: you sometimes absolutely can just ignore it. The instance from the article is one such example.
I didn't read it that way. The subject seems to feel overwhelming grief/dispare for being different and notices it everywhere he goes. What good is there in ignoring it? I'd address it. Own it. It seems that the subject generally has had a supportive family/community and has not had much adversity other than just feeling stuck in his life.
That was a singular event in the article. The article goes on to say how he sees and feels his difference everywhere. He notices in most places, everyone else is the same and he is different. I did not make the interpretation that he only notices this because once someone told him he was different. I interpret that he would have noticed this whether someone said it or not. This is why I personally would address it versus pretend it doesn't exist. From a young age, I would have presumed there is no scenario where he could live a life ignorant of his difference.
To be clear, I'm saying it can't be ignored as a parent. Gabe can ignore it, but that usually requires some proper preparation and understanding of how to deal with the emotions it may generate when someone says it. Hence the parenting part.
> Gabe clearly already knows that he is different; there's absolutely no point in telling him this, other than to hurt him.
That’s from top of thread, and what I’m disagreeing with. My stance is he should be told so he can understand, process, ask questions, be supported, in a safe positive environment.
Never discussing it is the same as ignoring it and he will notice or be told by someone. It might just be some innocent 3 year old on a playground, but he will be told. But you’re letting him deal with that in the moment unprepared if you don’t proactively address it as a parent. All kinds of bad could come from that.
It’s where I entered. The parent of that is more in tuned with my opinion of addressing it in a positive manner. You introduced the idea of concealing it/never mentioning it on that comment, there’s nothing new you’re saying here and based on other posts you’re just argumentative with everything so I’m done here.
There's a gulf of difference between burying/hiding truth and going out of your way to unnecessarily bring up a fact that serves no good purpose in context.
All of which to say, you can affirm it by being a dick, but that's not the only way to acknowledge the truth. Nor should we pretend the facts aren't there.
We are all different, and have different challenges in life to overcome. That’s life, as they say. You, for instance, have your prejudges to struggle with.
The question is how we all deal with these challenges, and how we meet people who are different from ourselves. I think it is important that we don’t put each other down, or judge based on our assumptions of what a person’s differences entails. Meeting people as individuals, and imagine other people complexly. And cheering on each other as we each overcome our challenges.
“We’re different, we’re the same” is a sesame street illustrated book that would clear things up quickly. Helped us explain the concept to our then 3 year old. Reinforcing the idea of celebrating the differences, we all have them, and not judging anyone else for theirs.
@avazhi Intelligence is a highly multidimensional thing. IQ as a general measure of intelligence is an antiquated concept. As such, eradicating "low intelligence" as you put it here is ill specified - what type of low intelligence? In what context?
More importantly, as AI models improve I think you will run into personal trouble by attaching your self-worth to your intelligence. For all of us "smart people", this aspect of our being will become increasingly insignificant.
But setting all this aside, ranking people based on any measure is a sure way to end up lonely and miserable. Giving love and respect to people based on their rank is a silly concept in my mind and I doubt you think this either.
Are you sure? It always seemed pretty reductive to me to try and take something as complicated as intelligence and reduce it down to a single-dimensional number. Most people consider me "smart", but that's only because I'm pretty good at math. I'm pretty much an idiot at anything else. Even the SAT breaks things down into different categories.
Also, given the fact that you can study for IQ tests, I don't really think I agree at all that it's some immutable and objective fact of behavioral science.
Sure, but If you can improve your IQ by studying, that suggests that this number isn't some hyper-objective thing we should treat as immutable or that it's even a true reflection of the person's total cognitive abilities.
I'm not saying that IQ is useless or anything, just that we should take the results with an appropriately large grain of salt.
You can improve your score by getting better at the tests and improving exam technique and maybe go from (picking numbers out of my arse) 115 to 120. You can't go from 90 to 120.
Depending on whether we're talking about studying-for-the-test or studying (education) generally:
> Studying and formal education can improve an IQ score by 1 to 5 points per additional year of schooling, while direct practice and familiarity with test formats can bump scores temporarily by 5 to 15 points.
If you include education generally, this gives a swing of up to 80 points between someone who goes to school K-12 and then studies for the IQ test, vs. someone who doesn't do any of that.
Given that 80 points is many standard deviations on the IQ scale, it kind of seems like it's mostly measuring education/studying rather than something innate like "intelligence".
Replace the word "study" with the word "cheat" and it makes more sense. You aren't SUPPOSED to study for an IQ test.
What you are seeing is that if you cheat it helps a little bit. That's not an argument for OR against them in general, except maybe to say that they should be more resistant to this type of cheating.
Even if you're not explicitly "cheating", if your job is more primed around pattern recognition and the like, you might still perform better on an IQ test than someone who works driving trucks. This doesn't imply that the truck driver is inherently more stupid than the person who reads patterns all day.
About half of general intelligence is this correlation between all the different types. Modern IQ tests measure something like 15 types, and pattern recognition is one of them. It's the correlation between all the types that really matters.
It is strongly linked to career success, educational attainment, and many other things in life that are typically regarded as positive outcomes. Lower g-factors correlate strongly with poor outcomes.
Regardless of what we're measuring (and if it can be improved with various interventions) it is something we can measure, seems to be heritable, and is strongly correlated with positive outcomes.
The GP's phrasing was harsh, but he's not wrong for insisting that good and bad are not the same thing.
Below average intelligence is something that should be fixed, not celebrated, and it's not just some cute and quirky Sesame Street "We're all different, but the same" thing. It's a disorder, like Depression or Schizophrenia. It should be treated, and ideally eradicated. People who have it should not be stigmatized for it, but they SHOULD be treated and at least taught coping skills - as they would be with any other disability.
Nobody denies that psychometric 'g' exists, but there is contention about what it means. There's more than one theory here among psychometricians, including mutualism, or even (as Cosma Shalizi writes) that g is just a statistical artifact (he shows persuasively that any battery of tests you construct with the same structure as IQ tests are going to have some kind of g factor, even if the tests themselves are meaningless).
Every person has differences from every other people. Including monozygotic twins. Clearly what’s being referred to here is using “different” dismissively.
This kind of feels uncomfortably close to eugenics talking points. I'm not saying that you're suggesting we do eugenics, because I don't think that's what you're trying to say, but trying to "eradicate low intelligence from the population" feels pretty similar to the "Three generations of imbeciles are enough" point from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Ultimately, I think there are more aspects of "value" than "being smart".
> a word for a person with a learning disability (= a condition that can have an effect on someone's ability to learn easily), which was used by doctors in the past but is now extremely offensive
Yes, in that context it's offensive, I agree. But when people use that as a slur with something without a learning disability they aren't literally talking about or referring to a learning disability so it's a different context
I have a friend who has a 501(c)(3) that makes really nice documentaries about people with Down syndrome, focusing on the positive influences they have on other people in their lives. They're on YouTube. Here's one I watched recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dCzejMK9jU
This is the non-profit:
https://www.storiesmadewithlove.com
Thank you for sharing
What is a 501(c)(3)? A camera?
In the US, this is a federally registered 'charity'. (501C3 refers to the tax code that allows this structure, similar in naming to our 401K, etc.)
Ah! Makes sense!
Contrast this with Iceland: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-01/iceland-prenatal-test...
"In Iceland, upwards of 85 per cent of women elect to have prenatal testing, and close to 100 per cent of pregnancies where Down syndrome is diagnosed are terminated.
Denmark isn't far behind, with a termination rate of 98 per cent."
Well this guy obviously is an outlier. Same as no down population has people that have exceptionally high and exceptionally low IQ, so does the down population. Mean IQ is 46.6. To be able to reasonably work 2 jobs, you need to be in 85-99 IQ, which unfortunately for people with down syndrome is very uncommon. I completely understand parents decision to not have baby that in 95% of cases will not be child to take care of itself when the parents are gone.
People end up romanticizing Downs syndrome because they only see the well functioning people with Downs. There are unfortunately a lot of them that are suffering hidden away at home and in institutions because they are severely sick and unable to function in daily life.
That applies to be people on the autism spectrum as well. I guess they are lucky there is no pre-birth genetic test for that.
[flagged]
Well, it is on conscious of every person to do that procedure. And we shouldn't judge them based on our beliefs.
[dead]
[flagged]
> And the male half as well
The "male half" has no legal say in the matter, s'not their body.
[flagged]
This is never a joint decision, definitionally. The consent form has a single signature. I don't disagree that the real world involves people in complex relationships typically having conversations - but there is precisely one decision maker and so shall it ever be.
Fundamentally applying "disapproval" to either party without complete context is stupid, but I doubt that'll stop people doing what they do
Legal rights don't care who disapproves, they either give you the option to choose, or remove that option by choosing for you.
Nobody in this thread is discussing legal rights.
yes, the man is not going to go 9 months and dangerous child birth, forced to completely change his body
[dead]
In the US, there is a very vocal minority that really, really doesn't like abortion.
Some of them actively publicize that people with Down's lead happy, healthy, and independent lives, without significant support. (As we see Gabe does in the article.) They generally stay away from the moral debate.
For people who follow the abortion debate in the US, when people say "as long as it's not used for Eugenics," what they really mean is that they are ok with abortion as long as it's not used to abort Down's fetuses.
I think in my head, I have difficulty reconciling people having different judgements about abortions for (broadly defined) lifestyle reasons vs "eugenics".
The goal. One is to prevent inconvenience to themselves, which is a lifestyle choice. The other is a goal of making a superior breed of humans.
You've exaggerated.
> 38% said it should be illegal in all or most cases
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/06/17/what-the-...
That is the definition of minority.
Of course, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate. It covers a ratio from 0.00001% to 49.9999%, so is in no way a useful word on its own. It's usually only used to influence people (as in this case, where it can be read as 38% being insignificant). Real numbers should be used, instead.
Stop trolling: "a very vocal minority that really, really doesn't like abortion" is very different than people who think it should be illegal.
I'm referring to people who pray outside of abortion clinics, put up gravestones for aborted fetuses, sponsor billboards, ect, ect.
It's an important aspect of American culture, and provides context to a possible anti-abortion agenda of the article, and contrast to Icelandic pro-abortion culture.
> I'm referring to people who
Then be clear and specific, and don't require everyone to guess. You are referring to an entirely negligible portion of the population, with no political weight, but phrased it as something significant. Again, "minority" is not useful for the exact reason demonstrated.
Ok, I'll be 100% specific:
You are a troll.
There, are you happy?
Good, it is an increased burden on society and the parents. Its her body her choice, right?
Is this related to the culture around living in harsher environments, where mistakes easily mean death?
I think it's more about living in a more homogeneous, more secular, more progressive, and generally more prosperous country than it is about the climate.
So, it's progressive to terminate the mentally ill? Seems like it would be a slightly different axis, since history shows it's a vector not purely aligned with the "progressive" label.
It's progressive to mitigate avoidable suffering, and not just for the mentally ill but also for those who will be negatively affected by the mentally ill. Progressivism isn't just blindly trying to make everyone happy, because that doesn't work. It's about not relying on dogma for making the best decisions for society.
Obviously it's easy to argue if terminating a pregnancy is the same as killing someone, but I'm willing to just give that to you since it seems like that's your position. But even then, sometimes people do have to die for what's best for society. Forcing people to give birth to a child they don't want and who will have a difficult life is certainly not a better policy than just avoiding all of that with an abortion, even if you want to consider abortion a bad thing. Sometimes you have to pick between two bad things, and it's certainly a progressive position to acknowledge this in order to pick the lesser bad thing.
> but I'm willing to just give that to you since it seems like that's your position
I'm not sure where you get this from. I stated, with very simple wording, that I don't think that terminating the mentally ill is related to being progressive, with an example demonstrating why. I'm not trying to communicate anything, other than what I wrote.
> But even then, sometimes people do have to die for what's best for society.
This is, literally, the reason the Nazis terminated the mentally ill [1], and is a framing that is not in line with progressivism at all, which would be more about personal choice.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life
>I'm not sure where you get this from.
Because that's what this entire discussion is about?
You do get that we're not talking about killing living people, right? At least if you're willing to say that an abortion isn't a living person, hence why I assumed that was your position lol
To be clear: I don't think it's progressive to round up mentally ill people and "terminate" them. I never said that. Nobody here is saying that. That's not what is being discussed in this thread by anyone.
>This is, literally, the reason the Nazis terminated the mentally ill
Sure, and it's also the reason we allow cops to use deadly force when necessary, or allow the military to kill enemy combatants, or, in some places, allow people to commit suicide in humane ways. It turns out, sometimes, someone dying is the best choice for society as a whole. It's not a pleasant reality, but it's inescapable.
Again, "progressivism" doesn't mean "only ever do things which are universally accepted as being good," it just means to make progress in the human condition through reforms aimed at increasing positive liberty [1]. That doesn't mean "don't ever ever kill anyone because it's bad to kill and makes people sad :(".
But, again, we're talking about abortion here. I'd love for you to explain how the right to abortion, for any reason, is actually not a progressive idea.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
> Because that's what this entire discussion is about?
My mistake! I completely misread that bit.
> I'd love for you to explain how the right to abortion, for any reason, is actually not a progressive idea.
One of those reasons is eugenics, a form of ableism. That was my only point.
whats with europeans and eugenics
Its a nice article and a positive one.
Unfortuna another documentary about people with Down Syndrome were more heartbreaking. A young girl got told from a doctor that not only shouldn't she get to try pregnant, the chance is very low already and that she has other medical concerns she needs to handle.
Not something she could handle without a proper care taker though.
They absolutely shouldn't try to get pregnant, they'll be incapable of looking after the child.
People with Down syndrome aren't all the same. The highest measured IQ of a person with Down syndrome in a scientific study was 117:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3707311/
Having said that, men with Down syndrome are generally infertile anyway.
Downs syndrome is indeed highly heterogeneous, one of the sadder aspects is the accelerated dementia specifically Alzheimer's.
I've known a few people with Dawn's syndrome and the striking often abrupt and rapid tragectory is shocking.
As much as the slow decline of dementia that it's often incidents months apart before things fall apart. Is sad.
So is it in people with Downs syndrome when at 35 their often bright and cheerful life loving demeanor seems to vanish over the course of a few months.
As I understand it it's because chromosome 21 carries the genes associated with Alzheimer's so they get an extra copy, but also structure issues with the brain, increased risk of sleep apnea and other toxic conditions.
Yes, there might be exceptions, but the averages in that article make my argument for me.
Your argument was not that it's bad for an average person with Down syndrome to have children. It's that they "absolutely shouldn't try to get pregnant, they'll be incapable of looking after the child." My response is that your argument, stated in this extreme way, is factually incorrect.
"Not all car crashes are the same. People sometimes live because they weren't wearing a seatbelt."
The point of these statements is to make an outlier appear as if it is part of the norm. They're bad statements to make, because at heart they are just misleading.
I understand this is an intellectual argument, but to use car crashes as a parallel to people's lives with Down syndrome is gross and dehumanizing.
> The point of these statements is to make an outlier appear as if it is part of the norm
Please don't lie about what I wrote. I explicitly said that 117 was "the highest measured IQ of a person with Down syndrome." My own comment says that it is an outlier.
> They're bad statements to make, because at heart they are just misleading
Please note the context of my comment, which was somebody saying that people with Down syndrome are "incapable of looking after the child." I pointed out that this does not apply to all people with Down syndrome, which is not misleading; it's correct.
TBH, I'm not sure what the purpose of your comment was, other than to start a moronic fight that does not need to be fought by lying about what I actually said. I'm not interested in having that fight.
Right, and there are people who live in car accidents because they didn't have on a seatbelt.
But no one counters "You should always wear your seatbelt" with "Some people have lived because they didn't have one on". It's a meaningless statement that doesn't change anything about the original statement.
I'm sorry, are you speaking English? I just explained how it contradicts the original statement. Are you a bot?
To add a factoid without expressing an opinion: women with Down syndrome are often fertile while men typically are not. The odds of the offspring of a female with trisomy 21 having the same trisomy are 50% theoretically, and between 33-40% in practice due to trisomy embryos having a higher rate of spontaneous miscarriage.
This chap pops up on social media occasionally: https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/20/man-shares-what-it-was-like-t...
(Not to say that anything you say is incorrect).
As a molecular biologist I would almost want to investigate if somehow the total expression of, or accessibility of this man's third Chromosome 21 is somehow reduced because this person seems to be very close to normal (2xchr21) humans on the normal to severe Down syndrome -spectrum. I have seen people with 2 times 21 with a more Down syndrome-like face than this man's even.
Mosaic trisomy, where only a subset of cells have extra chromosomes, is possible for essentially any chromosome including 21.
This makes some trisomies survivable, e.g., trisomy 16 which is otherwise incompatible with live birth.
Hmm in that case his germline cells could be ok...
Taking advantage of this post to encourage others to look for volunteer opportunities in your area.
Growing up my mom worked closely with children/young adults with disabilities so I was exposed to people with down syndrome from a very young age and I am so incredibly grateful for that. Today I just try my best to keep her work going.
About halfway through the article.
One of the things I like is the article really gets through the facade into understanding who Gabe really is. It doesn't focus on quirks, and instead humanizes Gabe.
I know a guy with down syndrome (kid of my parents' friends) and I would have to say he is the happiest person I know. Anytime I see him, he gets a huge smile on his face. He walks over to me and asks me how I am doing. He is such a friendly and cheerful guy. I saw his mom scold him for being disruptive and he got a frown for like 10 seconds and then he returned to being the happiest guy around. To be able to always be that happy is a goal so many of us fail to achieve.
He appears to have a rather mild form of down syndrome.
Now - Down Syndrome is typically called trisomy 21, that is, you have three copies of chromosome 21 when normally people have two copies of each chromosome, excluding XY in regular males (2n = 46 in humans, the diploid state; naturally females would have XX, whereas humans would normally have XY, unless there would be a genetic change leading to a different ploidy state here as well; normally those with Down Syndrome have regular XX or XY condition for that chromosome, only chromosome 21 has a +1 higher count). If you, however had, look at as many examples as possible for people with Down Syndrome, you notice a huge range of differences here. That is, some are affected by the condition a LOT; others have an almost normal life, compared to perhaps average to a bit below average "regular" humans. I also noticed something similar for the progeria disease. Now, progeria is much more problematic and severe than Down syndrome; but there is a huge range of people with different symptoms here. Adalia Rose had a severe variant and did not survive past age 15, whereas Tiffany Wedekind has a less severe variant (but also exercises a lot and tries to keep healthy, despite already facing significant health problems, at age 48 this year now).
So we see a huge pleiotropy of different genetic conditions. In most cases exercises, activity and mental mood improves things, but there are hard caps and limits. For instance, Adalia could not have done as Tiffany did, simply due the genetic status being different. It reminds me of the movie Gattaca (now almost 30 years old) - it's a bit slow and a bit over-drama, but has great actors and an even greater take-home message aka "The Underdog who never gives up". Good to have seen it at the least once, too.
If you don't have someone with Down Syndrome in your life, you are missing out. They are awesome and have amazing hearts.
There is a wide range.
I have two people in my extended family with Down Syndrome. It's not the "bro" version that Shane Gillis talks about or the TV-friendly version like on Life Goes On.
They are both severely impaired, nonverbal, and demand constant attention. I only see them a few times per year and even within those isolated windows, I find it exhausting.
Some of the stuff would sound cute if done once or twice, but when it's every 2-3 minutes all day long... it's hard.
I'm not Downs but I have a personality disorder such that I've always felt different. I'm 60 now and yet to meet anyone, M or F, who seems remotely like me. I was married, didn't end well, and have a daughter who doesn't talk to me. I live every day bathed in the knowledge that I am utterly alone in the world, despite having 2 close female friends. It has always been this way. It will always be this way. I try to live a quiet secluded life.
Is it a recognized personality disorder?
(I'm guessing "no" but a lot of recognized conditions have huge variance in individuals, so having a recognized personality disorder also isn't a guarantee that there will be others with a similar mindset...)
More importantly, I wish you peace and happiness. It's a difficult hand to be dealt...
Many individuals also have more than one personality disorder. I have a partner with bipolar + borderline + OCPD and a bunch of other stuff. I have a fair few too (borderline and OCPD at least).
Based on a hunch, GP may potentially find similar minds on 4chan
Your HN user profile and https://morethanone.info are fascinating to me but I don't think that it's a good idea to promote 4chan here
That's on them, see the first 2 rules.
I like how you got their pronoun correctly
How would you know? They/them is usable in the singular as gender-neutral. I'd appreciate that lack of assumption either way.
It's definitely not for me, or probably most of HN, but I used to know someone who thought similarly, and they found 4chan helpful. My mention of it was a personal suggestion, not an endorsement.
As for plurality, it is quite fascinating indeed <3
Well - many people with a personality disorder don't even have kids, so perhaps you did something better than these; or, different, if better does not serve here.
I would not want to give any advice to anyone about their own personal lives, but surely the story you show here must be incomplete. Unless your daughter never spoke to you to begin with.
Even for people without any disorder, communication is not always trivial - some find it easy, others find it hard. For me it is hugely difficult to do small-talk and fake-talk. My brain does not work like that. Whereas if something is interesting, I can talk and listen easily.
I can't speak for the commenter, but many people (arguably, most?) manage to work around their differences to fit into society, if not make a relationship work for at least a while (see also "masking").
But anecdotal (friends, family, colleagues, myself), these coping mechanisms aren't permanent; masking constantly once you're living with someone else is pretty much impossible, fatigue/burnout kicks in often in people's 30s, and a lot of coping mechanisms people learn as kids are no longer effective or desirable as adults (often known as neuroses). Then there's attachment issues, also picked up as children. These may apply to everyone, but they're exacerbated for people with personality disorders, mental health issues and/or neurodiversity.
Figuring out what are "built in" / genetic / medical conditions, unhealthy coping mechanisms or trauma responses is a long journey that a lot of people are going through.
This sounds very difficult. There are so many people who live with loneliness. It reminds me of the "Tin Man" episode of Star Trek TNG.
I wish you well and hope you find your Tan Elbrun.
"On the spectrum," here. My mother knew, when I was kid, but never told me. I had to find out, the hard way, in my 40s.
Made me a damn good coder, though.
No one ever told me I was "different." They just kept ghosting me, and shunning me, all my life.
If I had known then, what I know now, I wouldn't have taken it so personally, and wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars, trying to fix something that can't be fixed.
Thanks for sharing. You described the situation well imo, wish you the best
I was lucky enough to know that all I need is presence in my life. I don't really care for interaction or romance.
Remember that having children, getting married, living a fulfilling life is just the status quo and not the path your life has take. Be or do whatever makes you happy as long as you're not harming others.
Might be a bit late, but it's all about the ride and leaving something behind for others to enjoy is a nice extra.
We'll pray for you.
> I try to live a quiet secluded life.
Sometimes when I read resignations like this, I think "who hurt this person, what did they do to feel so shut out?" Then I wonder random possibilities like if the hurt stemmed from a series of escalating misunderstandings or dramas.
One side of my in-law's family works like an extended soap opera. Multi-generational siblings forming cliques where one clique won't talk with/hate-with-a-passion the others for up to a decade then suddenly the ice thaws and they are all raucous friends again and then whole new cliques form over some drama. One family member takes this idiocy especially hard and has now self-excluded from the entire family, we will probably never hear from them again. I liked that guy, sad to see him go!
I know this is probably rather annoying advice to be given, but if you haven't already, you should talk with a therapist. You don't have to be sad to see a therapist.
Thoughts in your own head can erode very deep grooves in your mind that only direct more thoughts in the same direction. Letting someone look in and simply point out those tracks is theraputic on it's own even if it's easy to dismiss talk therapy as simply just talking.
Reality is just whatever your brain synthesizes from your senses, and that means you're never perceiving any sort of objective reality. We often think we know where those grooves are so we can avoid them, despite the fact that we're standing in deepest part of the proverbial canyon and simply pointing at scratches on the rockbed. We're predisposed to think in grooves we often think in, and our perception of reality resets to reflect that pattern.
A good therapist won't challenge "I am utterly alone in the world", because that's one of those scratches you already know "feels like a sad thought" when you think it. You have a lot of proof that it's true, but I'd bet you still recognize it as something hurtful to think about. Instead, they'd want to figure out what the last scratch was that deepened the floor of the canyon. Some thought/belief that you knew was hurtful and then was proven to be reality to you. Anyone can do that with you (friend, family), but a therapist requires no emotional reciprocation because you're paying them. It's worth it.
> I've always felt different
visit new york city's lower east side
everyone here is different :)
[flagged]
A personality disorder have nothing to do with Downs. One is a genetic disorder and the other is a maladaptive pattern of affect.
Many personality disorders have a strongly heritable component.
End result is the same though? Cause vs effect.
[dead]
> But because he has Down syndrome, someone told him he’s different.
Down Syndrome is a quite serious genetic abnormality, pretending it's not with silly statements like "someone told him he's different" is absurd.
It's absurd is being told you are different dismissively and not constructively. It's easy and convenient to dismiss people based on their needs, but true value lies in including everyone meeting them where they are.
> different dismissively and not constructively
Give examples
What am I, your chatgpt? I'm in for constructive criticism and for a debate but I won't materialize this just so people can pick on my poorly choosen examples.
> But because he has Down syndrome, someone told him he’s different.
Yes, and him being different (in a negative way) is a statement of fact. One shouldn't be going around shouting this into the faces of people with Down's, but we as a society have to stop pretending low IQ is something to be celebrated or disregarded in people.
Low intelligence as an attribute (not the unfortunate person saddled with it) ought to be universally stigmatised and we should be doing our best to eradicate it from the population. That certainly doesn't mean we should go out of our way to disrespect or dehumanise stupid people to their faces, but there has to be some sort of policy nuance in both treating them with respect while also calling a spade a spade and acknowledging that certain traits and conditions would be better off not existing in the population.
I don't know why people don't understand this, but something being true doesn't mean it can't also be hurtful, and it doesn't mean it has to be said. Gabe clearly already knows that he is different; there's absolutely no point in telling him this, other than to hurt him.
I look at it through my parenting lens. You can’t just ignore it. You have to prepare them for a harsh world where they will constantly hear it, feel it, and possibly worse. I’d feel my role would be to fully acknowledge it, overly embrace it, almost to a theatrical level. This would be privately in the home and while they’re young but the idea is to make them understand their difference has lots of benefits/positives to it. It’s kind of a super power. So they have a positive self image and relationship with their difference before they have to deal with the external stuff. Then, of course, they’ll still get upset when a name caller or bully confronts them but you can lean on the foundation of this is just who you are and who you are is awesome. It still hurts ofc but that’s inevitable in this world, how you respond is controllable. Someone simply vocalizing a fact shouldn’t ruin their day if they’ve been properly “coached” to have the fortitude.
> You can’t just ignore it
I agree with your comment in general, except this one point: you sometimes absolutely can just ignore it. The instance from the article is one such example.
I didn't read it that way. The subject seems to feel overwhelming grief/dispare for being different and notices it everywhere he goes. What good is there in ignoring it? I'd address it. Own it. It seems that the subject generally has had a supportive family/community and has not had much adversity other than just feeling stuck in his life.
The instance in the article is a third party telling Gabe that he's different.
That was a singular event in the article. The article goes on to say how he sees and feels his difference everywhere. He notices in most places, everyone else is the same and he is different. I did not make the interpretation that he only notices this because once someone told him he was different. I interpret that he would have noticed this whether someone said it or not. This is why I personally would address it versus pretend it doesn't exist. From a young age, I would have presumed there is no scenario where he could live a life ignorant of his difference.
To be clear, I'm saying it can't be ignored as a parent. Gabe can ignore it, but that usually requires some proper preparation and understanding of how to deal with the emotions it may generate when someone says it. Hence the parenting part.
> That was a singular event in the article
Which is what was being discussed in this thread.
> Gabe clearly already knows that he is different; there's absolutely no point in telling him this, other than to hurt him.
That’s from top of thread, and what I’m disagreeing with. My stance is he should be told so he can understand, process, ask questions, be supported, in a safe positive environment.
Never discussing it is the same as ignoring it and he will notice or be told by someone. It might just be some innocent 3 year old on a playground, but he will be told. But you’re letting him deal with that in the moment unprepared if you don’t proactively address it as a parent. All kinds of bad could come from that.
This was in response to another comment.
It’s where I entered. The parent of that is more in tuned with my opinion of addressing it in a positive manner. You introduced the idea of concealing it/never mentioning it on that comment, there’s nothing new you’re saying here and based on other posts you’re just argumentative with everything so I’m done here.
There's a gulf of difference between burying/hiding truth and going out of your way to unnecessarily bring up a fact that serves no good purpose in context.
All of which to say, you can affirm it by being a dick, but that's not the only way to acknowledge the truth. Nor should we pretend the facts aren't there.
"You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole." (The Big Lebowski)
Ah but they do understand this. They just like hurting people.
We are all different, and have different challenges in life to overcome. That’s life, as they say. You, for instance, have your prejudges to struggle with.
The question is how we all deal with these challenges, and how we meet people who are different from ourselves. I think it is important that we don’t put each other down, or judge based on our assumptions of what a person’s differences entails. Meeting people as individuals, and imagine other people complexly. And cheering on each other as we each overcome our challenges.
“We’re different, we’re the same” is a sesame street illustrated book that would clear things up quickly. Helped us explain the concept to our then 3 year old. Reinforcing the idea of celebrating the differences, we all have them, and not judging anyone else for theirs.
@avazhi Intelligence is a highly multidimensional thing. IQ as a general measure of intelligence is an antiquated concept. As such, eradicating "low intelligence" as you put it here is ill specified - what type of low intelligence? In what context?
More importantly, as AI models improve I think you will run into personal trouble by attaching your self-worth to your intelligence. For all of us "smart people", this aspect of our being will become increasingly insignificant.
But setting all this aside, ranking people based on any measure is a sure way to end up lonely and miserable. Giving love and respect to people based on their rank is a silly concept in my mind and I doubt you think this either.
Blessings on your journey.
[flagged]
Are you sure? It always seemed pretty reductive to me to try and take something as complicated as intelligence and reduce it down to a single-dimensional number. Most people consider me "smart", but that's only because I'm pretty good at math. I'm pretty much an idiot at anything else. Even the SAT breaks things down into different categories.
Also, given the fact that you can study for IQ tests, I don't really think I agree at all that it's some immutable and objective fact of behavioral science.
The best IQ test has 15+ categories of ability that it measures, and they correlate to a decent degree.
And yes you can study for IQ tests, but I could study basketball and while I might get better, I'm never playing in the NBA.
https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/the-bbc-tries-to-debunk-iq
Sure, but If you can improve your IQ by studying, that suggests that this number isn't some hyper-objective thing we should treat as immutable or that it's even a true reflection of the person's total cognitive abilities.
I'm not saying that IQ is useless or anything, just that we should take the results with an appropriately large grain of salt.
You can improve your score by getting better at the tests and improving exam technique and maybe go from (picking numbers out of my arse) 115 to 120. You can't go from 90 to 120.
Depending on whether we're talking about studying-for-the-test or studying (education) generally:
> Studying and formal education can improve an IQ score by 1 to 5 points per additional year of schooling, while direct practice and familiarity with test formats can bump scores temporarily by 5 to 15 points.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6088505/
If you include education generally, this gives a swing of up to 80 points between someone who goes to school K-12 and then studies for the IQ test, vs. someone who doesn't do any of that.
Given that 80 points is many standard deviations on the IQ scale, it kind of seems like it's mostly measuring education/studying rather than something innate like "intelligence".
Replace the word "study" with the word "cheat" and it makes more sense. You aren't SUPPOSED to study for an IQ test.
What you are seeing is that if you cheat it helps a little bit. That's not an argument for OR against them in general, except maybe to say that they should be more resistant to this type of cheating.
Even if you're not explicitly "cheating", if your job is more primed around pattern recognition and the like, you might still perform better on an IQ test than someone who works driving trucks. This doesn't imply that the truck driver is inherently more stupid than the person who reads patterns all day.
Have you heard of the 'g factor'? [0]
About half of general intelligence is this correlation between all the different types. Modern IQ tests measure something like 15 types, and pattern recognition is one of them. It's the correlation between all the types that really matters.
It is strongly linked to career success, educational attainment, and many other things in life that are typically regarded as positive outcomes. Lower g-factors correlate strongly with poor outcomes.
Regardless of what we're measuring (and if it can be improved with various interventions) it is something we can measure, seems to be heritable, and is strongly correlated with positive outcomes.
The GP's phrasing was harsh, but he's not wrong for insisting that good and bad are not the same thing.
Below average intelligence is something that should be fixed, not celebrated, and it's not just some cute and quirky Sesame Street "We're all different, but the same" thing. It's a disorder, like Depression or Schizophrenia. It should be treated, and ideally eradicated. People who have it should not be stigmatized for it, but they SHOULD be treated and at least taught coping skills - as they would be with any other disability.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
Nobody denies that psychometric 'g' exists, but there is contention about what it means. There's more than one theory here among psychometricians, including mutualism, or even (as Cosma Shalizi writes) that g is just a statistical artifact (he shows persuasively that any battery of tests you construct with the same structure as IQ tests are going to have some kind of g factor, even if the tests themselves are meaningless).
I had not heard of G factor.
That said, even in the article you linked it does not appear to be a universally accepted truth.
That is what the kids call a "cope" because it then leads down some paths that are unpopular to consider.
Reading the room helps, which you seem pretty bad at.
Something can be true, and you don't need to point that out
[flagged]
If we’re going to eradicate anybody, I think it should be those who advocate eradicating people.
Every person has differences from every other people. Including monozygotic twins. Clearly what’s being referred to here is using “different” dismissively.
I'll disregard that advice unless he runs for political office, and then only if the incumbent is noticeably smarter.
This kind of feels uncomfortably close to eugenics talking points. I'm not saying that you're suggesting we do eugenics, because I don't think that's what you're trying to say, but trying to "eradicate low intelligence from the population" feels pretty similar to the "Three generations of imbeciles are enough" point from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Ultimately, I think there are more aspects of "value" than "being smart".
[flagged]
Sorry, but is this a joke?
Its defined as offensive: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/retard
> a word for a person with a learning disability (= a condition that can have an effect on someone's ability to learn easily), which was used by doctors in the past but is now extremely offensive
Yes, in that context it's offensive, I agree. But when people use that as a slur with something without a learning disability they aren't literally talking about or referring to a learning disability so it's a different context
[flagged]