Talk:Dysgenics

Choice of main term; narrow vs broad claims

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)

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)

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)

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)

Neutral title

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)

Further reading

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)

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)

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)

Questioning the article's POV

As it stands, the article does not discern which varieties of dysgenics are commonly grouped together (i.e., the sort regarding health (accumulation of congenital disorders...), temperament (conscientiousness, psychopathology...), and intelligence.) It does not discern the accumulation of mutational load (e.g., per parental age effect) from directional selection (i.e., per differential fertility of some sort). It does also not discern historical notions of / proposed mechanisms for dysgenics (e.g., per Galton and Fisher) from modern ones (e.g., per Huxley and Muller).

Just about the only thing this article states as of late 2024, is that some mysterious process without historical background or conceptual value is not happening. ChopinAficionado (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

At this time, I will not pursue this matter any further personally, but the POV template should absolutely stay up until someone at least attempts to address the underlying issues mentioned above.

If, in the future, anyone is interested in which sources I would suggest to improve the article, they may go and mail mail ChopinAficionado .

(Note that this is not a WP:SOAPBOX given my directly addressing the issues concerned.) Kind regards, ChopinAficionado (talk)

some mysterious process without historical background or conceptual value is not happening. It has historical background. That's what the article is about. Generalrelative (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)