From a Rawlsean perspective, your genes are like a lottery. So if they are an important factor in your wealth, this can be an argument for redistribution. But we are not even allowed to research and think about these things? And if we try there is moral shaming.
-
-
-
Appreciating heritability is one reason I'm open to UBI.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
It’s not stigma, it’s just that we are typically very bad at it.
-
Typically economist don't know even simple things about genetics. Of course I could list a substantial number of geneticists that don't either... Of course there is stigma.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Biologists are more willing to apply economics to genetics than economists are to apply genetics to economics. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/sexual-selection-13255240 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That thread was definitely an amusing read
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If we aren’t looking for the answer, we will never find the answer
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm an economist. I don't think 90%+ of economists would mind using IQ, genes, etc. in the slightest. To be sure, the other 10%, especially non-researchers, might mind a lot. They aren't journal editors or referees at decent journals though.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Economics is fertile ground for grievance studies takeover.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
i mean, it’s a really dangerous road to go down, and it stands on tenuous foundations (at best)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.