Ordinary Banana

The part people seem to be getting bothered about is basically Herrnstein's syllogism, replicating the fun tendency lately about people getting upset at stuff that turns out in the new genomic/polygenic score studies despite twin/adoption studies giving the same info for decades

I don't know about you but I personally can't wait to troll a person against state paternalism by saying you can make it mostly unnecessary by a publicly funded massive genetic improvement program for the whole population.Maybe T Young style in being concentrated at lowest scores

do you have a deep intuitive sense of why people think eugenics is wrong? is it just “bad people did it”?

No, although I think that for most people that's mostly it, more SJ and/or Christian adjacent people also say it's disrespectful for the people being replaced/discarded/selected against My answer is the typical Savulescu one: seatbelts not disrespectful to the disabled etc.

the problem is in the current climate "there's literally no moral difference between genetic improvement and environmental improvement as long as you aren't violent* about it" is extremely counterintuitive, but I think most people in favor of early intervention for IQ should be…

in favor of non-violent means to improve it too if they are genetic-biological (same for dunno lead removal) while at the same time no one would support even British-Sweden level state violence for policies like that if they're by-environment improvement

*I realize non-violent does a lot of lot of work here and it's more complicated. If you're having an extremely rough time economically "we gibs you money for being sterilized" is not a choice, it's coercitive

interestingly the coercion is from being born short certain input streams which is what they propose to do to others