Talk:Dysgenics

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.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 7, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed

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: Keep, 9 October 2020, see discussion. keep, 6 January 2016, see discussion.

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Molecular Biology: Genetics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Medicine: Genetics / Psychiatry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force. Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Evolutionary biology Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Statistics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Human Genetic History (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Dysgenics is the decrease in prevalence of traits...

This opening seems to imply, in WP:WIKIVOICE, that an overall decline is occurring:

• By using the definite article the, and
• By invoking reification bias: the tendency to believe that a phenomenon is real if it has been given a name.

I'm not aware of an overall genetic-based decline being established for any trait of interest, and indeed the rest of the article does not treat the implied claim as true.

One possible solution is to lead with the adjective form and narrower claims:

A policy or practice is described as dysgenic if it causes a decrease in prevalence of traits...

For example, a war that kills millions of drafted soldiers might be dysgenic for health if ...

Another possibility is (B) distancing the broad claim using a term that suggests uncertainty:

The dysgenic hypothesis states that humans populations are undergoing a decrease in prevalence of traits...

Proponents of the hypothesis argue that certain societal trends may affect the selection pressures on heritable traits: ...

These could be combined, with each term bolded and defined at a different point in the article.

We should also take care to not imply that several narrow claims automatically add up to the broad claim. The three examples in the article (draftee fatalities and health; fertility and intelligence; neonatal care and genetic disorders) relate to different traits and are far from the only factors influencing the gene pool. Jruderman (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you're using pretty stylish talk quotes, not bad.

Feel free to make it more ambiguous, but I will supplement the article with some 50 sources to the opposite effect in the next days or weeks, so the effort may be moot in the end. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I would find "dysgenic hypothesis" objectionable. If e.g. tall people are likely to be drafted, this entails a Darwinian selection against this trait. The real question would be if there are additional variables that may counter-act this kind of dysgenics (relative to some frame). Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to correct my previous statement: extensive Wikihounding has made it unlikely that I'll engage with this topic to the extent I originally wanted at this time (or ever). So, just ignore that half of the comments above. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Kevin Bird's recent paper, I'm thinking "Dysgenic pressure" or "Dysgenic predictions" would be a better title than "Dysgenics". Any comments before I start a move discussion? (Including a preference between the two suggestions.) Jruderman (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Niesser source says: "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 produce changes in the population mean." I don't have access to the source, but IF the source talks about the reason for population means not changing has to do with regression towards the mean, (which I thought was a well-observed phenomenon in genetics, though I could be wrong) it would be nice to add this explanation to the sentence sourced to Niesser, because I'm the type of person who thinks the encyclopedia is better if people understand WHY some phenomenon is true. ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to access the book a few weeks ago using The Wikipedia Library, and you may be able to as well. It's in the APA section.

IIRC, I looked at chapters 13–15 because their titles seemed relevant to the question of dysgenics. One point, directly related to the text quoted in our footnote, immediately made sense to me: looking only at the highest decile and the lowest decile means you're throwing away information about the shape of the graph – and most people are somewhere in the middle! (To add my own synthesis: consider an imaginary country where poor people are having kids and gaining just enough in welfare benefits to stay afloat, rich parents are hiring au pairs, and middle-class couples feel that the escalating costs of housing and childcare will force them to reduce their quality-of-life if they choose to have more children. You'll have some kind of J-shaped curve but you'll be trying to reason based on the slope between the ends.)

Coincidentally, I just did a major revamp of Gini_coefficient#Limitations, much of which is about throwing away information about the shape of a graph.

There was a lot more in Niesser that I didn't understand on first read, which is why I didn't summarize it for the article. Maybe I'll go back sometime, but right now I'm extremely busy trying to shepherd a move discussion related to recent IT outages.

— Jruderman (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm the type of person who thinks the encyclopedia is better if people understand WHY some phenomenon is true."

YES. This is why I advocate for including primary sources in addition to secondary sources. The Niesser-edited volume may actually serve as both – each chapter is essentially a paper by a different author (a primary source), while its inclusion in the book and its summary in the opening supports both notability and interpretation (a secondary source). Jruderman (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True. I added a "clarification needed" tag that was then immediately removed multiple times over by user:Generalrelative. I don't really understand Niesser's argument either though... Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "Further reading" section, which contained 1 item: a 1997 response paper making a minor point. I stated in my edit that this text is definitely WP:UNDUE in this context. The most immediate rationale for that is that the paper it responds to is not listed. But more to the point, we should be listing current, mainstream stuff in a "Further reading" section, if any remains that hasn't been cited in the article. This edit was promptly reverted by Roggenwolf (whom I now see is Biohistorian15, a frequent contributor to this topic area, operating under a new name). They are invited to discuss the matter here. Generalrelative (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't insist on the section then.

I don't see how pointing out my change of name is of any great help here.

Other than that, please self-rv the other half of your blanket revert, @Generalrelative. Roggenwolf (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for engaging. Unfortunately I don't agree with your assessment of what is most relevant in the "See also" section either. Perhaps others will come along who do. Generalrelative (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]