# Eugenist types



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

The thing is, is that some of the advantages l think could be possible with _some_ eugenic measures will never exist alone.

lt's just not going to happen once you have that ball rolling, so, even though l can say l have given certain aspects of the subject limited consideration l always have to put my foot down in the end.

l'd only be interested in advanced prenatal testing for certain conditions, which leads to possible ways to modify those predispositions...which leads to the obvious horrific and widespread implications.

Eugenics bad

Not good

BAD eugenics, very very bad eugenics. 
:kitteh:


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

TJ types come to mind when I think eugenics. Self-iprovement (Fi) and objectivity (Te)


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Some people are intelligent enough to trick themselves into believing something evil is actually good.


----------



## Persian (Jul 16, 2012)

People calm down!

Not all Eugenists are interested in castrating idiots. The only types that are into this are TLRE, TLBE, TLRA, and TLBA.
The whole point of this thread was to describe the different types of Eugenists/Eugenic faculties. You can't stereotype us, no matter how hard you try. 

Also, the E types are super-familiar with biodiversity, and survival of the most adaptable. This is why we like twins so much.


----------



## Persian (Jul 16, 2012)

Unlike the Quadras, the four Eugenist groups correspond to how one expresses their Eugenic faculty.

*The four Eugenist Groups*


*LR*
eLiminator Reproductives
The Leaders


LRs both support the minimization of DUI reproduction, and the maximization of HS* reproduction. They look at humanity from both sides.




*LB*
eLiminator laid-Backs
The Sterilizationists


LBs are not concerned with the reproduction of HS. Instead they are concerned with eliminating the genes that correspond with DUI using different methods. Not all of them support the sterilization of Idiots.




*PR*
Passive Reproductives
The Breeders


PRs are optimistic Eugenists. They are not concerned about DUIs. They believe that the problems will all be solved if there are more HS.




*PB*
Passive laid-Backs
The Hesitant


PBs are the least likely to embrace their Eugenic faculty.
Eugenist PBEs are focused on experimentation, while PBAs are more theoretical.


*Healthy Smart


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

Even if Eugenics could somehow be completely removed from the ethical/moral/human rights problems that come along with it, and even if we could somehow ignore the variables involved and the fact that it's damn-near inevitable that it will eventually lead down a bad path, there's still the rather large problem that *it* *doesn't work. *And here's a very good explanation of why.


----------



## ApostateAbe (Aug 8, 2013)

I figure I am best classified as an NPRA eugenist. I would tend to use the word, "eugenicist," not "eugenist." Never heard that word. I think the most productive policies for a eugenicist at this point would be to counteract policies that promote dysgenics, like tax breaks for parents.


----------



## Persian (Jul 16, 2012)

ApostateAbe said:


> I figure I am best classified as an NPRA eugenist. I would tend to use the word, "eugenicist," not "eugenist." Never heard that word. I think the most productive policies for a eugenicist at this point would be to counteract policies that promote dysgenics, like tax breaks for parents.


If you are like that, you are better typed as a TLBA, since TLs are the ones that want to prevent the dysgenic breeding of DUIs. Ns do not care much about the society, their main concern is to make a master-race. PRs do not care about the dysgenic breeding of DUIs. Their only concern is getting HS people to breed more. 

I am happy to hear that you are a Eugenist.

I've made this whole theory of dividing Eugenists into sixteen different groups when I was upset about how much people stereotype us. These divisions aren't the only aspect of my theory. I believe that everyone has a Eugenic faculty, but only a select few embrace it. The faculty isn't the same for everyone. It has sixteen different basic subtypes, and some people also have a weaker or stronger faculty. The probability of you being a Eugenist (embracing your Eugenic faculty) has more to do with the type, than the strength of the faculty. But that is not always the case. Their are some weak TPBAs that are Eugenists, while there are strong TLREs that did not embrace this component of their mind.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

I suppose I'm TPRE. What does that mean about me?


----------



## Persian (Jul 16, 2012)

@Debaser

This is the thread about discussing Eugenist types, and the Eugenic faculty.
This is not the thread to argue that Eugenics doesn't work. You can however argue about the existence of Eugenists types/faculty.
If you want to argue about Eugenics not working, then create a new thread, and label it "Why Eugenics doesn't work".


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

Persian said:


> @_Debaser_
> 
> This is the thread about discussing Eugenist types, and the Eugenic faculty.
> This is not the thread to argue that Eugenics doesn't work. You can however argue about the existence of Eugenists types/faculty.
> If you want to argue about Eugenics not working, then create a new thread, and label it "Why Eugenics doesn't work".


There's not much argument about it. Decades of research coupled with basic logic reveal it simply does not work. It is fringe pseudoscience that is accepted by no legitimate modern scientists. Genetic research in general is one thing, but Eugenics, as in attempting to eliminate "inferior" (a highly subjective term) traits through selective breeding? Doesn't work.

Moreover, where does this Eugenics "typing system" even come from? Did you design it or what?


----------



## Persian (Jul 16, 2012)

Debaser said:


> There's not much argument about it. Decades of research coupled with basic logic reveal it simply does not work. It is fringe pseudoscience that is accepted by no legitimate modern scientists. Genetic research in general is one thing, but Eugenics, as in attempting to eliminate "inferior" (a highly subjective term) traits through selective breeding? Doesn't work.
> 
> Moreover, where does this Eugenics "typing system" even come from? Did you design it or what?


One thing about the majority of humans is that they have no patience. 

Yes, I have designed this typing system myself, and I have made the theory of a Eugenic faculty over the last few months.


----------



## Bipedal P 314 (Dec 10, 2011)

The concept for eugenics was developed before anyone really understood the complexity of the human genome or how even how genes function. Even the most healthy people carry genes which predispose their children to mental illness, cancer, genetic disorders, mental handicaps, etc etc. The idea that you can simply selectively breed people to rid humanity of bad genes also doesn't take into account the degradation of existing genetic information.

History does not look kindly upon eugenics because it started from a place of ignorance and prejudice and never really developed beyond that.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Maybe it's a time for change?


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> Maybe it's a time for change?


Meaning...?


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Debaser said:


> Meaning...?


To rid the system of prejudice and address viewpoints objectively. Traditional Vs Nontraditional where is the prejudice in that? Keep that. Laid back Vs Reproductive, where is the prejudice in that? Experimental Vs Accepting, where is the prejudice in that? The prejudice lies in Passive vs Eliminator: basically the typing says if you're trying to change people w/ your own view points or if you don't try. Every one can have an opinion T/N, L/R, E/A


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> To rid the system of prejudice and address viewpoints objectively. Traditional Vs Nontraditional where is the prejudice in that? Keep that. Laid back Vs Reproductive, where is the prejudice in that? Experimental Vs Accepting, where is the prejudice in that? The prejudice lies in Passive vs Eliminator: basically the typing says if you're trying to change people w/ your own view points or if you don't try. Every one can have an opinion T/N, L/R, E/A


No, the fact is the system is objectively invalid in the first place, prejudice or no prejudice. As I've said, eugenics is an outdated fringe theory that has been tested and failed. It has been wholeheartedly rejected by the scientific community. The only way it could remotely work is if we actually developed a way to alter the human genome. But then, that would be totally different anyway. Perhaps you should read this:

Why Eugenics Will Always Fail

Here, I even cut out this part:




> So what would we gain for this vulnerability, and this expenditure of energy and care on selective human eugenics? What's the ideal trait that we'd like for future humans to have? The general consensus on what we'd like to breed into the human population is intelligence. The human brain wants to preen and protect itself. This separates us from the animals! Except there's no pure way, genetically, to do that. During a recent interview with Io9, Gary Karpen, a UC Berkeley biologist, has said flat-out that, given all possible genetic information about a child, it is in no way possible to predict intelligence. There are too many traits bound together, too many ways that genes might be expressed. The leader of the Human Genome Process, Francis Collins, said the same in his own book, claiming that no amount of genetic tinkering could give people designer babies with intelligence to order





> Well, what about other things? Strength? Fertility? Resilience? The problem is there is no one smart gene, or fertile gene, or strong gene. Mix the DNA of two geniuses and, even assuming somewhere in the soup of their DNA intelligence is passed down, it drags a net of other traits along with it. Those who manage animal breeding notice the same. When one can breed in a trait like swiftness in horses, or health and fertility in chickens, it generally comes with any number of other characteristics. Thoroughbreds and "hot-blooded" horses are notoriously temperamental. One study in poultry husbandry showed that even moderate increases in hen fertility and health came with increase in aggression, hysterical behavior, weird imprinting responses in the young, and odd sexual behavior. Good luck with that mixed in to the human population. Eugenics can't be a scalpel. It's a club. Even assuming we could get an extraordinary trait in one area, it would come with a whole host of other traits that wouldn't be so desirable.
> 
> But surely eugenics, at its most benign, can be used to eliminate the more terrible genetic conditions in a population? No one could actually approve of a human child suffering? Since the beginning of the concept, this was the most socially acceptable side of eugenics. Some would say that it's in practice today, since parents often consult genetic scientists to see if a fetus actually carries an incurable genetic disease.
> At the same time, there are relatively few diseases that are guaranteed by a person's genes, and science is for the most part at work to use gene therapy to eliminate the expressed disease in one person, not the genes in an entire group. Even the elimination of genes that cause genetic disorders can pose a problem. For a some time, it seemed that genetically heritable diseases such as Tay Sachs and sickle cell anemia were biological mysteries. Why would any population pass down a disease that would kill the next generation? Recently, though, it was found that the sickle cell anemia allele helped protect against malaria, arguably the most widespread killer of humans, and that the allele that caused Tay Sachs protected against tuberculosis, another famous killer. Again, a complete elimination of these genes from the human population may very well lose humankind the capacity to naturally guard against two widespread non-heritable diseases.
> Too often eugenics is dismissed on moral grounds by people who say science shouldn't meddle with nature because it's wrong, or cruel. Practically speaking, that's not the only "should" to use. To express the argument fully, we need to employ the practical use of the word "should." Selecting and deselecting certain genes of people shouldn't be done because it's the wrong way to go about building up a strong, healthy, and smart population. Instead, the widest array of genes should be supported. Differing genetics should be seen as opportunities to understand the hidden strengths of different human beings. And we should understand the many ways that stubborn genetic diversity benefits our society.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

So you're saying it's mere coincidence that the past 4 generations (that I know of) have a high level of intelligence, on both sides of my family? @Debaser


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

Abraham Lincoln, Isaac newton, stephen hawking, Hellen Keller, F.D. Roosevelt, are all considered inferior by eugentics standards. If we want to build the perfect basketball team then eungetics is the way to go. But if we want a civilized, rich, and diverse society the so called "inferior" have to stay.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> So you're saying it's mere coincidence that the past 4 generations (that I know of) have a high level of intelligence, on both sides of my family? @_Debaser_


If you support eugenics you should remove Abraham Lincoln and even Leonardo Davinci from your sig. All of which would not have been born because of eugenics philosophy.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

dvnj22 said:


> If you support eugenics you should remove Abraham Lincoln and even Leonardo Davinci from your sig. All of which would not have been born because of eugenics philosophy.


I think you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> I think you don't know what you're talking about.


Abraham Lincoln's family had a long history of mental illness, if eugenics was around then his ancestors would have been killed or sterilized therefore no honest Abe.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

dvnj22 said:


> Abraham Lincoln's family had a long history of mental illness, if eugenics was around then his ancestors would have been killed or sterilized therefore no honest Abe.


I'm not saying mental illness is BAD genes. You're also blowing what this thread is about way out of proportion. Eugenics doesn't mean kill all weaklings....


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> So you're saying it's mere coincidence that the past 4 generations (that I know of) have a high level of intelligence, on both sides of my family? @_Debaser_


Did you actually read or...? No, even if it is possible that there is such a thing as an "intelligence gene" which can be spread, doesn't matter because there's no way to isolate it or pass it along without passing off a host of other traits along with it. There's also the fact that intelligence is, in my view, more of a case of nurture-over-nature for the most part. One can have any combination of genes, but if they never receive a proper education it won't matter in the slightest. There's billions of times many more factors that go into such a complex thing than Eugenists and you seem to believe. It's not as simple as "My parents are smart, their parents were smart, so biologically it is inevitable I will be smart as well." What an oversimplistic view, that for some reason still persists despite the fact that we know better now. Call me when you invent a way to identify the genes behind every human trait and use that information to alter the human genome.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> I'm not saying mental illness is BAD genes. You're also blowing what this thread is about way out of proportion. Eugenics doesn't mean kill all weaklings....


So I guess mental illness is good genes. Doesn't match up with the hundred years of eugenics philosophy but ok. 

also I said sterilization, or killed.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

I'm not even going to bother anymore. You're just anti-eugenics so therefore hate on every aspect of it.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

dvnj22 said:


> So I guess mental illness is good genes. Doesn't match up with the hundred years of eugenics philosophy but ok.
> 
> also I said sterilization, or killed.


I'm all about picking which genes you want, not eradicating any type of genes. There are upsides to depression and there are downsides to depression. I know this very well. But some people don't know how to deal with depression or are too poor to deal with depression so having a child with depression is not a good idea there. Depression can pass down from your genes, it doesn't mean 100%. Nothing is 100%.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> I'm all about picking which genes you want, not eradicating any type of genes. There are upsides to depression and there are downsides to depression. I know this very well. But some people don't know how to deal with depression or are too poor to deal with depression so having a child with depression is not a good idea there. Depression can pass down from your genes, it doesn't mean 100%. Nothing is 100%.


But what about your intelligence? I thought that wasn't coincidence? Yet now your saying nothing 100% becuase tis convenient to you.


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> I'm not even going to bother anymore. You're just anti-eugenics so therefore hate on every aspect of it.


Are you talking to me, him or both of us? I haven't seen you give any logical reason whatsoever to support eugenics that cannot be easily debunked. I'm also not sure why you think you know more about this than pretty much every scientist who has lived for the last like fifty years. BASIC knowledge of human genes and biology, which did not exist at the time eugenics was a popular theory, is all it takes to easily destroy it. And this, again, ignores all other ethical and logical factors - logical as in, it will inevitably lead down a bad road.

Look, trust me, I understand where you're coming from. I'm about as solid a "P" as there is. I hate to throw out any idea and I can usually see the merits to most any of them. And I actually can see the original theoretical eugenics and I certainly understand why people thought it was a good idea back in the 20's, because it fit with their understanding of biology. But because this has something which has actually been attempted and did not work, because it fails basic logic tests, because it conflicts with new scientific knowledge of genes, because it can easily be used for terrifying purposes no matter how good the original intent - and has, and because it is extremely unethical even in its most benign form, this is just one of those "no brainers" to me.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

dvnj22 said:


> But what about your intelligence? I thought that wasn't coincidence? Yet now your saying nothing 100% becuase tis convenient to you.


90%


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> *I'm all about picking which genes you want*, not eradicating any type of genes. There are upsides to depression and there are downsides to depression. I know this very well. But some people don't know how to deal with depression or are too poor to deal with depression so having a child with depression is not a good idea there. Depression can pass down from your genes, it doesn't mean 100%. Nothing is 100%.


Uh... this is not possible with current technology. It is also completely impossible to control them through Eugenics/selective breeding, as explained because of all the other factors in both nature and nurture, along with the fact that bad genes along with good genes defeats the entire purpose of "improving" humanity on the whole. So you pretty much have to support eradicating some genes as well, but it doesn't matter because it's basically impossible anyway. You realize that many, many people have given their kids rare diseases without having any way of knowing, simply because they carried the gene even though it was not active in them? How in the hell do you propose solving this? Saying that anyone who has even the slightest chance of passing on a bad gene, or not passing on a good gene since you insist you don't want to "eradicate" anything, is not allowed to have children? That may not be "Nazi," but it's definitely "Fascist" and it is sure as hell not liberty. And it is STILL a completely impractical idea which can be easily disproven. Believe me, if you can prove everybody else who knows anything about this topic wrong and find a way to make it work, you will win a Nobel prize. Otherwise, you're gonna have to wait until we have Star Trek technology to do what you want to do.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Debaser said:


> Uh... this is not possible with current technology. It is also completely impossible to control them through Eugenics/selective breeding, as explained because of all the other factors in both nature and nurture, along with the fact that bad genes along with good genes defeats the entire purpose of "improving" humanity on the whole. So you pretty much have to support eradicating some genes as well, but it doesn't matter because it's basically impossible anyway. You realize that many, many people have given their kids rare diseases without having any way of knowing, simply because they carried the gene even though it was not active in them? How in the hell do you propose solving this? Saying that anyone who has even the slightest chance of passing on a bad gene, or not passing on a good gene since you insist you don't want to "eradicate" anything, is not allowed to have children? That may not be "Nazi," but it's definitely "Fascist" and it is sure as hell not liberty. And it is STILL a completely impractical idea which can be easily disproven. Believe me, if you can prove everybody else who knows anything about this topic wrong and find a way to make it work, you will win a Nobel prize. Otherwise, you're gonna have to wait until we have Star Trek technology to do what you want to do.


What? What would we need technology for? I'm talking about selective breeding. Looking for a mate for yourself. Using your own personal judgments. Like I would marry basically any one because I have just about every mental illness in my genes but there are people who would not want to marry me because of that fact and I understand and respect that. Some people don't want to deal with certain traits, I'm not talking about using technology to change anything about anybody, I'm talking about choosing who you want to mate with based on genes.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

This sounds like hitler's eharmony.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

How the fuck am I like Hitler? That was very disrespectful. I don't sound like Hitler at all.


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> What? What would we need technology for? I'm talking about selective breeding. Looking for a mate for yourself. Using your own personal judgments. Like I would marry basically any one because I have just about every mental illness in my genes but there are people who would not want to marry me because of that fact and I understand and respect that. Some people don't want to deal with certain traits, I'm not talking about using technology to change anything about anybody, I'm talking about choosing who you want to mate with based on genes.


You realize that this is not the same thing as Eugenics, right? Eugenics is an (outdated) theory designed to eliminate "inferior" human traits and attempt to maintain "superior" human traits (subjective terms of course), in order to improve the human race on the whole. It always fails, it always has side effects, if always leads to bad things because of its subjective nature, it does not fit with modern scientific understanding, and it always has unintended and harmful consequences. We're talking about a much larger scale here than who you personally choose to mate. And like I said, even that is a roll of the dice because people can carry tons of "bad" traits without even realizing it. Nobody can ever be completely sure how their child is going to turn out. You *might* be able to slightly improve your chances to eliminate certain things or pass on certain things (assuming this is a good idea in the first place), *if* you have comprehensive family histories on both sides, but even still there are always risks that you can never get rid of. What I'm saying is that *until* such gene-altering technology exists, breeding will *always* be a roll of the dice. Attempting to breed "selectively," especially on a large scale, simply does not work. There are far, far too many variables at work that people who advocated Eugenics decades ago simply did not understand. Genetics and reproduction are fascinating and extremely complex processes, our knowledge of which, thanks to a greater understanding of DNA and the Human Genome, has rapidly evolved in the time since Eugenics was an accepted theory.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> How the fuck am I like Hitler? That was very disrespectful. I don't sound like Hitler at all.


Throwing around the word "eugenics" is the same as throwing the word "slavery" around. If you don't want to be called out on in supporting something as oppressive and brutal as eugenics then don't talk about it. Your right you don't sound like hitler at all, just ignorant.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Debaser said:


> You realize that this is not the same thing as Eugenics, right? Eugenics is an (outdated) theory designed to eliminate "inferior" human traits and attempt to maintain "superior" human traits (subjective terms of course), in order to improve the human race on the whole. It always fails, it always has side effects, if always leads to bad things because of its subjective nature, it does not fit with modern scientific understanding, and it always has unintended and harmful consequences. We're talking about a much larger scale here than who you personally choose to mate. And like I said, even that is a roll of the dice because people can carry tons of "bad" traits without even realizing it. Nobody can ever be completely sure how their child is going to turn out. You *might* be able to slightly improve your chances to eliminate certain things or pass on certain things, *if* you have comprehensive family histories on both sides, but even still there are always risks that you can never get rid of. What I'm saying is that *until* such gene-altering technology exists, breeding will *always* be a roll of the dice. Attempting to breed "selectively," especially on a large scale, simply does not work. There are far, far too many variables at work that people who advocated Eugenics decades ago simply did not understand. Genetics and reproduction are fascinating and extremely complex processes, our knowledge of which, thanks to a greater understanding of DNA and the Human Genome, has rapidly evolved in the time since Eugenics was an accepted theory.


I didn't realize my definition of eugenics and your definition were two different definitions. This explains the conflict. Yeah I'm against controlling the entire population to get certain genes. I'm for, however, the choice of the individual to mate with whomever they may desire to mate with based on known genetic occurrences.


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> I didn't realize my definition of eugenics and your definition were two different definitions. This explains the conflict. Yeah I'm against controlling the entire population to get certain genes. I'm for, however, the choice of the individual to mate with whomever they may desire to mate with based on known genetic occurrences.


But even still, how can you determine who you should mate with? Again, until gene-altering technology exists, *everyone* will carry a risk to pass on "bad" genes and no one will have genes so completely "perfect" that they will always pass on their good genes and not their own "bad" genes. It's always a major risk no matter who it is with, for better or for worse. The outcome cannot be controlled without that technology, and even with it there is a major ethical question of whether it *should* be anyway. My mother was the first in her entire family to ever go to college. There have been people in my family with OCD and anger management issues. Some of their kids got them; some didn't. Some parents might give their kids Tay Sach's without having any knowledge they possessed this gene. A blonde and a brunette can make a ginger. There might be a higher likelihood of certain things, yes, but ultimately it is a fight against nature and a risk no matter what because of it. My point is that reproduction is a MASSIVELY complex process that you are taking a very oversimplified view of. What you are saying will only really be valid once the technology to have greater control over the process exists. Even then, the question will always remain whether or not you should screw around with nature like that.


----------



## rawrmosher (Apr 22, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> I didn't realize my definition of eugenics and your definition were two different definitions. This explains the conflict. Yeah I'm against controlling the entire population to get certain genes. I'm for, however, the choice of the individual to mate with whomever they may desire to mate with based on known genetic occurrences.


If you'd choose who to mate with based on their genes rather than the person then there's no hope for you. 

Sorry, but this eugenics stuff just sounds completely ridiculous. We already have enough things in society telling people their not good enough or inferior in some way, but we're picking on their genes now? This has wack scientist written all over it >.<


----------



## Persian (Jul 16, 2012)

Guys, stop fighting. Let's instead discuss the existence of a Eugenic faculty to aid us through many years of evolution.


----------

