People Shouldn't Be Rewarded For Being Lucky To Be Born With Certain Facial or Body Features. They Should Be Rewarded For Valuable Achievements Which They Have Attained On Their Own ( @brendazambrano)
So pathetic things like this would not happen - 5000 SD for being considered "pretty" and playmate model.
5000 SD reward for someone's luck to be born with certain face and body:
https://steemit.com/introduceyourself/@brendazambrano/hi-i-am-the-first-playmate-with-more-than-a-million-followers-to-blog-on-steemit
This is a disgrace and disrespect to all human kind, specifically all people who were unlucky to have bodies and faces which are culturally considered "unattractive".
wellcome
Hello :-)
Upvoted
Do you think that intelligence or eloquence are any less a function of DNA or social class or luck than beauty is? Nah. One person is born beautiful and gets upvotes. Another is born eloquent and gets them. Same difference.
Yes, you are right. Maybe this good looking Woman dont know how to write a good Story.
Then she doesnt need to write it. I don't know how to write neither. There are other ways of expressing yourself with some intelligent content. Anyway I'm not criticising her post here. She can post whatever she likes. My focus is on bullshitness of rewarding such behaviour, which is common and pervading in our culture.
You don't understand genetics. Your statement is a dangerous pseudoscience (in style of sensationalist newspapers which cherry pick bad science). This pseudoscience was responsible for such thing like Nazi eugenics. Intelligence is not genetically predetermined. What is genetically predetermined are your facial features, colour of your skin, your eyes, hair colour etc.
You may have genetic predisposition to have better cognitive learning ability but predisposition is not the same as predetermination. For your predisposition to be expressed you need influence\stimulation from environment (bio-psycho-social factors). The most important for this predisposition to be developed are first years of child development. Anyhow, you may have a predisposition to learn things quicker but if you are born in violent and consumerist culture, you will just learn how to be violent and consumerist faster. Human brain has no mechanism of recognizing which behavior is intelligent and which is not (by intelligent behavior, I mean sustainable). You learn such behavior.
I recommend these videos:
The idea that genetics doesn't influence intelligence is a plain and simple overreaction to eugenics (which was indeed horrid). No scientists really believe that genetics is irrelevant to intelligence, though few are willing to risk researching and publishing on this sensitive topic for obvious reasons.
That genetics influences intelligence is obvious. We see it most clearly at the extremes--for instance numerous types of mental incapacity (like Down's Syndrome) are obviously genetically determined. Furthermore, we know from intelligence tests that certain genetically similar types of people (I wont' use the word "racial groups" because the concept of race has no scientific basis), even when raised in different parts of the world, share measurable similarities in intelligence. For instance, Ashkenazi Jews (wherever they have been raised in the world) score higher on average on intelligence tests than any other genetically similar group. Certain Asian demographics do likewise.
Some argue that these measured differences in test results are cultural rather than genetic. Even though that's incredibly doubtful for the reasons just noted, it still doesn't undermine my point since being born to a specific culture is no less random than being born with certain genes. Perhaps Ashkenazi Jews demonstrate better aptitude on intelligence tests on average only for cultural reasons. So what? Given that none of us "earn" the right to be born an Ashkenazi Jew, it doesn't matter in terms of undermining my thesis.
Even if culture is completely irrelevant and it all comes down, as you say, to how your parents developed you in the first few years of life, it stil doesn't undermine my argument. Since we don't "choose" or "earn" our parents, intelligence is still a matter of luck. None of us "deserve" our parents, good or bad.
Down Syndrome is a genetic defect (disorder). I'm not talking about genetic defects. Genetic defects despite causing cognitive disabilities, also cause physical disabilites.
There is no coherent, peer reviewed scientific evidence that certain ethnic groups have genetic predetermination to have better cognitive functions than other.
You are welcome to post references to credible scientific research, if you claim otherwise. The best would be meta analysis.
As I said, genetic predetermination IS NOT THE SAME as genetic predisposition.
Level of cognitive ability comes from combination of genetic predisposition (with epigenetic influence) with environmetnal factors.
Anyhow, like you said, something random should not be rewarded.
What should be rewarded is a contribution to betterment of humanity. Reward for valuable and sustainable actions which improve the quality of life in our society and our natural environmental.
Rewarding body objectification and random physical features is inconsiderate ("disrespectful") to all people who have been unlucky to be born with such features (and when rewarded with material good or money, also inconsiderate towards poor people). Such reward is neither intelligent nor sustainable. It is example of culturally conditioned primitive behaviour.
Your response is just misguided in so many ways.
First, you label Down Syndrome (which is just one example among many) as a "defect". But it's a defect only because it has an unwelcome effect. All mutations and genetic abnormalities are just that--some just have beneficial effects and others have unwelcome ones. Regardless, in the case of Down's Syndrome (and others), they clearly affect intelligence. So, we know with certainty that genes influence intelligence at the extremes.
It's simply inconceivable that genes influence hair color, body build, whether we can digest lactose or not, speed, tendency toward many mental illnesses, and a million other factors, but not intelligence. If that's really your position, feel free to stand by it, but nobody believes it.
It's scientifically indisputed that certain genetically similar groups score better on intelligence tests than others. You can easily research this yourself, and since you're the one challenging me, it's incumbent upon you to refute it. For now, I'll just say that this statement from the mid-1990's pretty much sums up the state of the science then, and nothing has really changed since: http://cpsimoes.net/artigos/bell_mainstr.html
The idea that "something random should not be rewarded" is equally silly. Everything is random at the end of the day. And beauty "improves the quality of life in our society and our natural environment" immensely. A world without beauty would be dismal indeed.
Rewarding "random physical features", by which you mean beauty, is no more inconsiderate than rewarding random intelligence or random athletic ability. Not everyone is born (either genetically or in the right society) to be intelligent. Should we then do away with the Nobel prize? Not everybody is born to be an Olympic athlete. Should we then not celebrate their astounding feats?
Your view of life is quite dismal really. In your world, we can celebrate nothing because nothing is "earned". Well, the sunset didn't earn its beauty, but it's no less worthy of being gawked over. Same with people.
"The idea that "something random should not be rewarded" is equally silly. Everything is random at the end of the day. And beauty "improves the quality of life in our society and our natural environment" immensely. A world without beauty would be dismal indeed.
Rewarding "random physical features", why which you mean beauty, is no more inconsiderate than rewarding random intelligence or random athletic ability. Not everyone is born (either genetically or in the right society) to be intelligent. Should we then do away with the Nobel prize? Not everybody is born to be an Olympic athlete. Should we then not celebrate their astounding feats?
Your view of life is quite dismal really. In your world, we can celebrate nothing because nothing is "earned". Well, the sunset didn't earn its beauty, but it's no less worthy of being gawked over. Same with people."
No one is born to be athelete. You develop this ability through physical training.
Concept of beauty is completely subjective, hence it has no impact on betterment of humanity. Should not be rewarded. Period
https://www.tvpmagazine.com/2015/04/the-ugliness-of-beauty/
Everythings is a mixture of random and deterministic events in the Universe but it is not the point here. It is about what is valuable for sustainable progress of humanity.
Down Syndrome is an unsustainable diversion from what is scientifically considered healthy for human development. Your argument is not relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome