Socionics and Communism

[Tigerfadder]

In theory, each person have a type from the day they come to this world. Communism is, in theory, the wellness of the collective (no matter the individual cost). It would only make sense that if you believe in both of these, that all babies should be mixed in the hospital and given out to the parent where they are duals or have preferably ITR's.

Any communism thinkers here?

[Raver]

How could you figure out babies' types unless you give them a brain scan in the future straight out of the womb (which doesn't seem like a good idea to begin with)? I still think raising your own blood is more beneficial than raising a random baby within your quadra regardless.

[GuavaDrunk]

That *might* work for the baby, if swiftly transferred so it can attach directly to its permanent caregiver(s), but you forget that it definitely won't work for the parent(s) that grew and gave birth to it. You'd need some hardcore cultural pressure to make a generation of adults used to the idea of trading, especially for the nebulous not-actually-an-ideal of Socionics. There would almost surely be separatist groups based on "Whatever happened to making an effort to relate to people!?" And based on other ideas too, but this is the one that argues against your proposition.

In short, welcome to the brutal end of your experiment.

Besides, your idea sounds more like Utilitarianism - seeking the greatest happiness for the greatest countable number of people, by whatever pragmatic means you care to employ.

[Tigerfadder]

That *might* work for the baby, if swiftly transferred so it can attach directly to its permanent caregiver(s), but you forget that it definitely won't work for the parent(s) that grew and gave birth to it. You'd need some hardcore cultural pressure to make a generation of adults used to the idea of trading, especially for the nebulous not-actually-an-ideal of Socionics. There would almost surely be separatist groups based on "Whatever happened to making an effort to relate to people!?" And based on other ideas too, but this is the one that argues against your proposition.

In short, welcome to the brutal end of your experiment.

Besides, your idea sounds more like Utilitarianism - seeking the greatest happiness for the greatest countable number of people, by whatever pragmatic means you care to employ.

It would suck for the parent who get the child of a mother who abused alcohol during pregnancy, or ate bad. It was the end result thought for communism I guess. Actually it would work as if how the "bee movie" and "antz", where they seperate "warrior" from "workers".

[GuavaDrunk]

It would suck for the parent who get the child of a mother who abused alcohol during pregnancy, or ate bad. It was the end result thought for communism I guess. Actually it would work as if how the "bee movie" and "antz", where they seperate "warrior" from "workers".

It's not even that, it's that a significant proportion of parents LIKE THEIR CHILDREN*. Geez. Where were you when the stereotypes about a mother's love were broadcast?

But, assuming we forget individual emotions for a moment, you're basically on the sliding slope to eugenics and people ordering a baby with specific qualities, for better or for worse. Recall that in practice communist countries did end up with a privileged class (high-level bureaucrats, etc.), which certainly used that privilege to gain a better quality of life.

*It's hormonal.

[Tigerfadder]

It's not even that, it's that a significant proportion of parents LIKE THEIR CHILDREN. Geez. Where were you when the stereotypes about a mother's love were broadcast?

But, assuming we forget individual emotions for a moment, you're basically on the sliding slope to eugenics and people ordering a baby with specific qualities, for better or for worse. Recall that in practice communist countries did end up with a privileged class (high-level bureaucrats, etc.), which certainly used that privilege to gain a better quality of life.

No you are not getting it really. It is that it might be better for society if babies with special traits where to be raised in environments where they and others benefits most. Mothers love... Those who promote communism does it for how the society benefits not how individual experience love

[GuavaDrunk]

No you are not getting it really. It is that it might be better for society if babies with special traits where to be raised in environments where they and others benefits most. Mothers love... Those who promote communism does it for how the society benefits not how individual experience love

I am arguing the pragmatic downsides of your idea, not the theoretical benefits.

[Pallas]

Real communists wouldn't let individual parents raise individual children in this weird capitalist nuclear-family model, so no one has to worry about this anyways. There are way better points regarding the relationship between communism and socionics that could be made.

[GuavaDrunk]

As an aside, Communism as I understood it is about remedying the alienation of individual workers from the process of work. An example is that assembly-line level workers deal with individual pieces of a car, for eg, but have no link to the finished car once it's assembled, so on a personal level their work has no benefit or emotional meaning (hence alienation).

In-person Communists nowadays seem very into living their life as if it is a piece of art, a performance, because that is the most personally meaningful way that they can engage with the world. I can imagine that raising someone else's child might throw a wrench in the meaningfulness part, unless they're *really* into feeling like a part of the whole.

[Tigerfadder]

As an aside, Communism as I understood it is about remedying the alienation of individual workers from the process of work. An example is that assembly-line level workers deal with individual pieces of a car, for eg, but have no link to the finished car once it's assembled, so on a personal level their work has no benefit or emotional meaning (hence alienation).

In-person Communists nowadays seem very into living their life as if it is a piece of art, a performance, because that is the most personally meaningful way that they can engage with the world. I can imagine that raising someone else's child might throw a wrench in the meaningfulness part, unless they're *really* into feeling like a part of the whole.

From the first part, sure. Like if I was your boss and say that each part you make earn the company 10 bucks. And your salary is 15. So if you make less than one part an hour you basically is ruin the company. If instead there is no correlation what you can see between what you make and the income you take away that direct pressure. Second part, idk. Its that weird part of the world..

I see that the end part of communism is the end of money itself. That everything is given to you by a superpower and you have to act your part. Ideally your part would be what you naturally want to do. Something like that.

[Tigerfadder]

Real communists wouldn't let individual parents raise individual children in this weird capitalist nuclear-family model, so no one has to worry about this anyways. There are way better points regarding the relationship between communism and socionics that could be made.

It be like a big school where children live from day one til they can work or what? ;p

[Slade]

There's an assumption here that duals would make better parents than non-duals, which doesn't make sense to me. I think these are ideas that better work in theory. Unfortunately, capitalism exploits a fundamental selfish quality in human nature that allows for advancement, progress, and in an odd way stability.

[Pallas]

If the parents are duals with each other that's obviously better they probably would've wanted the children to be activators, semi-duals, or look-a-likes so things don't blow up with asymmetrical type relationships where one party can largely control the other or illusory type relations who want the children to use their role functions to the exclusion of their lead.

[ignition]

Real communists wouldn't let individual parents raise individual children in this weird capitalist nuclear-family model, so no one has to worry about this anyways. There are way better points regarding the relationship between communism and socionics that could be made.

It's because familial/clannish power structures are a major hindrance to ideologically-geared state-oriented power structures like Communism.
inb4 real communism is stateless

[Pallas]

It's because familial/clannish power structures are a major hindrance to ideologically-geared state-oriented power structures like Communism.
inb4 real communism is stateless

Real communism is the communism that exists. But even they weren't happy with families until they gave up.

[Tigerfadder]

It's because familial/clannish power structures are a major hindrance to ideologically-geared state-oriented power structures like Communism.
inb4 real communism is stateless

Depends, Communism is at the core what benefit the community (or society) no matter individual cost. As opposite of individualism. How it suppose to play out is a theoretical question which there are many answers. If we assume that about 50% of people have a communism core and 50% of people have a individualism core we will never have a pure form of any of these -ism without some serious repression.

[Chae]

What about free will, chance? That model would develop into something as equally damaging as gender and race discrimination, like the caste system in India. Birth determines association - a very, very bad idea.

[ClownsandEntropy]

Depends, Communism is at the core what benefit the community (or society) no matter individual cost. As opposite of individualism. How it suppose to play out is a theoretical question which there are many answers. If we assume that about 50% of people have a communism core and 50% of people have a individualism core we will never have a pure form of any of these -ism without some serious repression.

I don't think I agree with this definition of communism. I take communism to really be about economics and business:

• Does the government own and control the businesses?
• Are the workers able to influence easily what the government does with the business?
• Are the businesses' profits distributed equally according to everyone's needs?

Way, way back when communism was first conceived, it was Karl Marx talking about business-owners who were able to get money without doing any work themselves, because they owned the business and got to keep the profits. Marx was against people working bad jobs and not getting paid appropriately.

After all, how would you account for, say, Anarchist Communism which wants businesses and its profit to be owned by the people but still wants people to have its individual freedoms? The first part ("Anarchist") is about much personal freedom everyone should have and the second is about economics ("Communism"). I consider the two separate.

A better dichotomy is about "rights" vs "welfare":
Rights perspective: No, we shouldn't separate people because families have the right to keep their child even if they have poorer welfare.
Welfare perspective: Yes, we should separate people because doing so will improve their welfare even though it takes away their rights.

I think people can disagree on that level.

I think people could also disagree about the facts: "I don't trust Socionics enough to think this is a good idea."
And I think people can also disagree about execution: "Yes, I think it would be good. BUT I don't we should do it - we can't trust our government to do this well."

My point is that I don't think people's perspective on this is very related to Communism.

[Tigerfadder]

After all, how would you account for, say, Anarchist Communism which wants businesses and its profit to be owned by the people but still wants people to have its individual freedoms? The first part ("Anarchist") is about much personal freedom everyone should have and the second is about economics ("Communism"). I consider the two separate.

I guess in a anarchist communism there would be a group of people just doing what they think is right, all the money is gathered in the company and than they eqully split the money (get the same income) and maybe save some to buy new stuff which is for everyone (coffee machine or something ;p)

[ClownsandEntropy]

I guess in a anarchist communism there would be a group of people just doing what they think is right, all the money is gathered in the company and than they eqully split the money (get the same income) and maybe save some to buy new stuff which is for everyone (coffee machine or something ;p)

Yeah, to be clear I think everyone would be doing what they think is right, because if anyone is being forced to do something then they're not getting the freedom.

I'm not sure if money would be evenly split - I think they probably give more money to people who are most disadvantaged (say more money to children who are going to school).

Also, in anarchist communism, even though it's communism, they probably wouldn't be in favour of splitting the children up. So Sacrifing people's rights for the greater good <> Communism.

[Tigerfadder]

Yeah, to be clear I think everyone would be doing what they think is right, because if anyone is being forced to do something then they're not getting the freedom.

I'm not sure if money would be evenly split - I think they probably give more money to people who are most disadvantaged (say more money to children who are going to school).

Also, in anarchist communism, even though it's communism, they probably wouldn't be in favour of splitting the children up. So Sacrifing people's rights for the greater good <> Communism.

I know school is a hustle so getting money for it is probably nicer than being forced by parents.

[Tigerfadder]

I guess in a Communism society, you get points for working but not working hard. If you work harder (put more effort in) you lose since you get the same amount of money. Also they have to remove all exam scores from school. And probably homework.

[Alomoes]

Well, what it should work is as follows.

People live in a commune.

People who live in said commune have absolute freedom to do whatever they want, but what they want is to survive. Everything else is an added bonus.

Technology leads to abundance. As such, there are two tertiary goals, the freedom to do whatever they want, and the continuing expansion of the commune to improve the quality of life of the people. Ideally, the technological singularity would have happened, if it should, but this is not necessary. Every technological advance should lower the requirements of labor and increase the amount of time they have to do other things, from self improvement to what ever hobbies they have.

The real thing that communism wants is for people to be free to do what they want, when they want to, barring anything that would harm his fellows of course. It is quite related to anarchism in this manner.

As such, people have freedom to do whatever they want (within reason), but work together in some manner related to survival. This is assuming that everyone else is going to follow this rule. It is enforced by the idea of a system of education that imprints the ideals of work and progress on the youth, much how American schools tend to impress varying ideals of democracy, pride in their nation, belief in that capitalism is the best, and so on and so forth. Ideally, the communes would have advanced far enough in applied psychology and educational studies that this should not be an issue. As said, technology enables abundance.

Communes are assigned a particular labor of which specific people are brought up to do by the government, which acts more as an administrative group, rather than a traditional government. This can change, as people can leave or enter their commune at will.

The main role of the government is to regulate the distribution of goods, and assign labor to people when necessary for the survival of the system. The government should be used in emergency situations to stabilize society.


Onto how Socionics fits in to this.

There are several ways I could imagine Socionics working in Communism. One is that it doesn't, and the minds of people are changed by the conditioning of the revolution to eradicate this theory.

The second is that different people have different needs, and thus they are allocated goods and services based around those needs. To each according to his need, from each according to his ability.

There is a 2.a to this where the people may be assigned labor based on their type, but this risks the creation of class. This would only be done in the most dire of situations though.

The third thing is that communism has no need for this alternative system of class, and it should not be used. I would personally not recommend such a thing though.

It is a hard thing defining communism. Communism is an idealistic and abstract system that was not heavily defined, and I haven't been through the texts as much as I could have been.

I believe that Socionics should be quite compatible with the Communist Revolution, and be a good tool in achieving and sustaining it.

[Spermatozoa]

In theory, each person have a type from the day they come to this world. Communism is, in theory, the wellness of the collective (no matter the individual cost). It would only make sense that if you believe in both of these, that all babies should be mixed in the hospital and given out to the parent where they are duals or have preferably ITR's.

Any communism thinkers here?

It is pretty hard to take this post seriously, for a whole lot of reasons.

Nonetheless, let's discuss the most obvious of them.

Firstly, people have an incentive to propagate their genes. Therefore, it makes sense to keep children with their biological parents in most situations, because those parents are already invested in the baby's success. Children raised by step-parents are subject to a far higher rate of emotional and physical abuse, and this is because at least one of their caretakers lacks this incentive.

Secondly, innate personality preferences are only one aspect of your identity. One of the fundamental flaws of communism is that it rejects outright the reality of group differences between people. We are all born equal, i.e. the same, to the communist, regardless of our different ethnic, cultural, religious and racial ties that also provide us with meaning and identity. Communists see all the above as threats to their ability to control people. After all, if people strongly identify with their race or their religion, then they may not obey the state and its ideology without question.

So of course, communists don't really care about the welfare of children. If they did, they would promote nuclear families, but instead they try to break them up. Individual parents will always be able to invest more time and energy into a child than the government can, and this, apparently, is a problem. People who are isolated, depressed and without a community/identity will look to the state for help, absorbing the pathologies of communism in the process.

Social engineering must be fought mercilessly, root and branch, or it is going to be the death of the West.

[ooo]

The Dialectic of Sex, Shulamith Firestone

The idea is that in a total equalitarian system governed by machines, women will stop to be the ones who have to undergo pregnancy and give birth, that is the main difference between the 2 genders, and what makes things all so difficult for women in society. Kids will be produced with birth machines, and assigned at birth to already formed "groups". This procedure will help erase from mankind the idea of family, and incest taboo, that for Freudian psychology, works as the great inhibitor of our subconscious; then of all our potentials.
In such a futuristic scenario, kids, as all women and all men, will have the right to be active, socially and sexually. Sex is recommended between all members of the groups, since they won't be formed by real blood-bonds; all groups will have the freedom to stay together, split, and do as they wish as single individuals. Groups can decide to adopt new members-kids too, or even mature ones.
Machines will inhance the personal freedom, as all the main works will be automated, humans will only have to dedicate themselves to the activities that they really like: because of this, the avarage satisfaction and quality of work should be increased. The role of sex especially would help this creativity, being free, it will enhance the "passions" of the individuals too in every aspect of life...

The author of this book became schyzophrenic and spent the last years of her life living alone, under prescriptions.

This is one of the first feminist manifesto.

[Spermatozoa]

The Dialectic of Sex, Shulamith Firestone

The idea is that in a total equalitarian system governed by machines, women will stop to be the ones who have to undergo pregnancy and give birth, that is the main difference between the 2 genders, and what makes things all so difficult for women in society. Kids will be produced with birth machines, and assigned at birth to already formed "groups". This procedure will help erase from mankind the idea of family, and incest taboo, that for Freudian psychology, works as the great inhibitor of our subconscious; then of all our potentials.
In such a futuristic scenario, kids, as all women and all men, will have the right to be active, socially and sexually. Sex is recommended between all members of the groups, since they won't be formed by real blood-bonds; all groups will have the freedom to stay together, split, and do as they wish as single individuals. Groups can decide to adopt new members-kids too, or even mature ones.
Machines will inhance the personal freedom, as all the main works will be automated, humans will only have to dedicate themselves to the activities that they really like: because of this, the avarage satisfaction and quality of work should be increased. The role of sex especially would help this creativity, being free, it will enhance the "passions" of the individuals too in every aspect of life...

The author of this book became schyzophrenic and spent the last years of her life living alone, under prescriptions.

This is one of the first feminist manifesto.

The scenario described above sounds eerily dystopian. No bonds, no differences, no responsibilities - this equals no purpose and no identity. No wonder the woman who dreamed of such a world was clinically insane, because to wish such a hell on people you'd have to be.

I hope you don't see this manifesto as something to aspire to...

[ooo]

The scenario described above sounds eerily dystopian. No bonds, no differences, no responsibilities - this equals no purpose and no identity.

No wonder the woman who dreamed of such a world was clinically insane. You would have to be mad to wish such a hell on anybody.

I agree it's horror, and I even think it's the direction towards which world leaders are aiming, mass technological effiency, totally satisfied consumers

[ooo]

I hope you don't see this manifesto as something to aspire to...

I don't support pedophilia, no; neither I think differences should divide us.

[anndelise]

"It takes a village to raise a child."
And no village would benefit well without the specialties of other types.
And it would benefit the children (and the village) to be capable of communicating and working with each of the other types.

[Exodus]

The real thing that communism wants is for people to be free to do what they want, when they want to, barring anything that would harm his fellows of course. It is quite related to anarchism in this manner.

Not really. If people are forced to give the fruits of their labor to the government then they aren't very free to do what they want, are they?

[Spermatozoa]

Not really. If people are forced to give the fruits of their labor to the government then they aren't very free to do what they want, are they?

Communists usually say their ideology is about making people equal and ensuring social justice, but that's not the point. Good intentions don't make you a good person.

Want to know why?

Well to advance their good cause, the social justice brigade (who are basically communists) want to force you to share with them all the unique assets that make you an individual. It isn't just your money they will come after, but your property, your body and your identity as well. When they talk about "breaking down boundaries", they mean turning wives against their husbands, turning children against their parents, and communities against themselves. Nothing is sacred. Authoritarians thrive when the public is atomised, anxious and lacking a strong cultural identity - for it is only then that the people see the government as a saviour. But to them, you, John, Jack or Jane, don't exist. You are just a member of Group X or Y, and only have whatever status the party ideology ascribes to that group of people.

A drive to make everyone equal, at all costs, will always violate our dignity as individuals. Inequality is a price well worth paying for liberty.

[anndelise]

Equal Opportunity, equal gender status, and equal race status don't mean "turning wives against their husbands, turning children against their parents, and communities against themselves" unless you believe in a hierarchal structure to society...that one gender should have more power/status than another, or one race should have more status/power than another, or children should pay for the sins and recklessness of their parents, grandparents, etc.

[The Reality Denialist]

Nah, communism should be treated as some sort of prognosis. It is bad idea to implement it forcefully. In cases like that it only means that conditions are incomplete.

[Adam Strange]

In theory, each person have a type from the day they come to this world. Communism is, in theory, the wellness of the collective (no matter the individual cost). It would only make sense that if you believe in both of these, that all babies should be mixed in the hospital and given out to the parent where they are duals or have preferably ITR's.

Any communism thinkers here?

The family is a natural communism. Think about that. (Unless your parents charged you for them raising you.)

It might be better (more mentally healthy) if kids were raised by parents of the same quadra (having been raised by out-of-quadra parents myself), but the kids might have fewer reasons to understand and be compassionate toward people of diverse character.

Another thing to consider is that there are evolutionary forces which push the male-female birth ratio toward 50:50, and there are almost certainly similar forces which drive families to have out-of-quadra children.

Socionics predicts that the best relationships are between duals, and these are best achieved when a person has an example of a dual in their family. Without that example, a person really has no natural way of knowing how good a relationship can be, and is very likely to accept one which is sub-par. Until some difficulties break them up and they are off on the chase again.

Mixing mates like this will produce a population which is genetically diverse and is therefore more likely to survive any single selective pressures. So, having unhappy marriages and uncertain kids actually increases the survival of the race.

Evolution works to propagate the genetic code, not to maximize the code carrier's happiness.

[ooo]

The family is a natural communism. Think about that. (Unless your parents charged you for them raising you.)

It might be better (more mentally healthy) if kids were raised by parents of the same quadra (having been raised by out-of-quadra parents myself), but the kids might have fewer reasons to understand and be compassionate toward people of diverse character.

Another thing to consider is that there are evolutionary forces which push the male-female birth ratio toward 50:50, and there are almost certainly similar forces which drive families to have out-of-quadra children.

Socionics predicts that the best relationships are between duals, and these are best achieved when a person has an example of a dual in their family. Without that example, a person really has no natural way of knowing how good a relationship can be, and is very likely to accept one which is sub-par. Until some difficulties break them up and they are off on the chase again.

Mixing mates like this will produce a population which is genetically diverse and is therefore more likely to survive any single selective pressures. So, having unhappy marriages and uncertain kids actually increases the survival of the race.

Evolution works to propagate the genetic code, not to maximize the code carrier's happiness.

yeah entropy!

[Tigerfadder]

The family is a natural communism. Think about that. (Unless your parents charged you for them raising you.)

It might be better (more mentally healthy) if kids were raised by parents of the same quadra (having been raised by out-of-quadra parents myself), but the kids might have fewer reasons to understand and be compassionate toward people of diverse character.

Another thing to consider is that there are evolutionary forces which push the male-female birth ratio toward 50:50, and there are almost certainly similar forces which drive families to have out-of-quadra children.

Socionics predicts that the best relationships are between duals, and these are best achieved when a person has an example of a dual in their family. Without that example, a person really has no natural way of knowing how good a relationship can be, and is very likely to accept one which is sub-par. Until some difficulties break them up and they are off on the chase again.

Mixing mates like this will produce a population which is genetically diverse and is therefore more likely to survive any single selective pressures. So, having unhappy marriages and uncertain kids actually increases the survival of the race.

Evolution works to propagate the genetic code, not to maximize the code carrier's happiness.

I see the logic but at the same time, we do have some interventions in the "evolution of economy". The true libertarian (Adam smith kind) say that economy should be free. This lead to the evolution kind of success. Bad companies die, good flourish. In reality we have a bunch of taxes and laws and stuff that steer the economy to what is suppose to be for the best, else it is just a blind horse.

Im killing my argument here but. At the same time we do not have a free economy we should do the same with human mental health, relationships and mental development-by-interactions? Treat the social sphere the same we do our economic sphere?

[Skepsis]

This is why typology should remain a personal endeavor. There is no link between brain scans and a person's supposed type in socionics as there is no link between a person's face and their supposed type. Empiricism is lacking. How does one suppose they can accurately type someone without empirical data; without proof that they are a particular type? It would only come down to a best, educated guess, and depending on the power and authority of the typologist. This could only lead to typology totalitarianism. I suspect this is one of the intentions of typology anyways.

[Spermatozoa]

Equal Opportunity, equal gender status, and equal race status don't mean "turning wives against their husbands, turning children against their parents, and communities against themselves" unless you believe in a hierarchal structure to society...that one gender should have more power/status than another, or one race should have more status/power than another

Familial, religious and ethnic identity are obstacles to a communist, because they provide an alternative way to organize a society than the party ideology. I also do believe in a hierarchical structure to society, simply because our talents and abilities vary.

or children should pay for the sins and recklessness of their parents, grandparents, etc.

This is the opposite of what a meritocratic society believes.

[anndelise]

Familial, religious and ethnic identity are obstacles to a communist, because they provide an alternative way to organize a society than the party ideology. I also do believe in a hierarchical structure to society, simply because our talents and abilities vary.

Yes, talents and abilities vary, and that's awesome and needed for a society to evolve.
I don't understand your response to my post. How is gender/sex and/or race an innate talent or ability?
In your ideal society, who is worth/valued more, men or women? In your ideal society, which ethnic identity is worth/valued more?



This is the opposite of what a meritocratic society believes.[/QUOTE]
Without equal opportunity measures, children DO pay for the sins and recklessness of their parents, grandparents, etc. A child born in poverty has fewer opportunities and connections than a child born in wealth. It affects their physical development, psychological development, social development. If the child's talents and abilities can't be utilized in it's developmental environment, then it can't participate well in a meritocratic society. It's like putting the children in a race, with the wealthiest 1/2 mile from the finish line, but the poverty children a full mile from it. And then claiming that the poverty children just didn't have enough talent/ability to cross with the wealthiest children. Basically, without Equal Opportunity, you ARE creating classes, but not classes based on talents/abilities, but classes based on opportunities.

Noone who supports Equal Opportunity honestly believe that all children will have the same teachers, the same style of teaching, the same everything. There will still be inequalities and differences. But with providing better educational and talent enrichment environments for poverty children, then the divide won't be as huge, and the poverty cycle would have a better chance of ending. Basically, through Equal Opportunity, children would have the ability to develop their talents and abilities and participate in a meritocratic society. It'd be like moving the poverty children from the 1 mile line to the 3/4 mark, where the ones with a higher innate talent/ability have a better chance of finishing with the 1/2 mile kids.

[Spermatozoa]

Yes, talents and abilities vary, and that's awesome and needed for a society to evolve.
I don't understand your response to my post. How is gender/sex and/or race an innate talent or ability?
In your ideal society, who is worth/valued more, men or women? In your ideal society, which ethnic identity is worth/valued more?

Whether I personally feel one identity is worth more than another is irrelevant to this discussion.

Gender and race differences do affect outcomes in life. This is a touchy subject for many people, but the average women is not as strong as the average man. The average black is not as intelligent as the average white. As such, they won't be equally distributed throughout society. Governments create resentment whenever they interfere through social engineering programs like affirmative action and housing, taking from one group to benefit another.

If you see equality as the end goal (like a communist) then you have to dismantle the natural order first, which means removing the family and other natural forms of group identity that separate people. As the Soviets learned, ideological crusades like this makes society much less productive and that is ultimately bad for everyone. Their ideological cousins in American media, academia etc refuse to accept reality, however, and march on, so determined are they to force their dystopia upon the rest of us.

Without equal opportunity measures, children DO pay for the sins and recklessness of their parents, grandparents, etc. A child born in poverty has fewer opportunities and connections than a child born in wealth. It affects their physical development, psychological development, social development. If the child's talents and abilities can't be utilized in it's developmental environment, then it can't participate well in a meritocratic society. It's like putting the children in a race, with the wealthiest 1/2 mile from the finish line, but the poverty children a full mile from it. And then claiming that the poverty children just didn't have enough talent/ability to cross with the wealthiest children. Basically, without Equal Opportunity, you ARE creating classes, but not classes based on talents/abilities, but classes based on opportunities.

Noone who supports Equal Opportunity honestly believe that all children will have the same teachers, the same style of teaching, the same everything. There will still be inequalities and differences. But with providing better educational and talent enrichment environments for poverty children, then the divide won't be as huge, and the poverty cycle would have a better chance of ending. Basically, through Equal Opportunity, children would have the ability to develop their talents and abilities and participate in a meritocratic society. It'd be like moving the poverty children from the 1 mile line to the 3/4 mark, where the ones with a higher innate talent/ability have a better chance of finishing with the 1/2 mile kids.

Equal opportunity =/= equality.

I agree that all citizens deserve an opportunity to make use of whatever talents they possess. This can be done by expanding access to high-quality education, for example, and ensuring that job offers go to locals first, not immigrants.

What I don't support, however, is artificially lowering the playing field to create a certain outcome for everyone in life. Unlike you, I don't see the existence of inequality as a problem in and of itself.