The toxic cultural effects of Darwinism

I don't find the arguments (only outlined) in the linked brief apologia to be very convincing. I think it is mainly an understandable pained reaction to the application of the principles of Darwinism to human society, which application is perfectly logical and reasonable in that mindset.

 
How, scientifically, is it a fallacy? 

I think this is the critically important question to ask!!  I suggest there is a lot to be learned in understanding why.
  
When you say: "principles of Darwinism to human society, which application is perfectly logical and reasonable", I lose my mind.
 
The actual outcomes in human "breeding" do not support the predictions of the various versions of Darwinism and neoDarwinism.   The depraved results and political actions taken in the name of Eugenics, are predictable with a modern understanding of genetics and accurate human data.

I think this is the critically important question to ask!!  I suggest there is a lot to be learned in understanding why.
  
When you say: "principles of Darwinism to human society, which application is perfectly logical and reasonable", I lose my mind.
 
The actual outcomes in human "breeding" do not support the predictions of the various versions of Darwinism and neoDarwinism.   The depraved results and political actions taken in the name of Eugenics, are predictable with a modern understanding of genetics and accurate human data.

When I said "perfectly logical and reasonable" that was in the Darwinist mindset.  

Do the outcomes of selective breeding of other mammals like dogs and horses and rats not support the predictions of neoDarwinism as far as the achieving of microevolutionary changes is concerned? Of course, the selective forces in selective breeding are very different than in nature, but the principles must still apply. If animal breeding of microevolutionary changes doesn't support neoDarwinism in principle at least, I'd expect that ID proponent scientists like in the Discovery Institute would have pointed this out. What they do point out is that Darwinian microevolution is real (things like Darwin's Galapagos finch beak shapes) - what isn't real is macroevolutionary changes (new irreducibly complex biological mechanisms and structures) resulting from the Darwinian mechanism.

I'm curious. (Your bolded above) - how are human genetics fundamentally or even somewhat different from those of other mammals like dogs and horses and mice in such a way that selective breeding just wouldn't work to increase some traits and decrease others? If so, then even microevolution couldn't have happened with humans. But wait a minute - it obviously has, with respect to some characteristics like skin color, physiognomy, etc.

I don't have the knowledge to debate the finer points, nor do I stand in defence of all that the darwinists advocate (I think the Darwin Unhinged thread, which I started, should be an indication of where I stand). Still, I do think that people who work in that field should be able to defend themselves from accusations of supporting blatantly racist and inhuman theories which could be associated with horrific social engineering projects such as those undertaken by the Nazis or, further back, the eugenics policies in the USA. 

Clearly, those very policies were founded on the fallacies of racial inequality - that black, Jewish, Serbian, Romany and other racial groups were inferior. The fact that elitist groups chose to interpret darwinism that way doesn't mean that the science inevitably pointed in that direction.

Yeah, I lean toward some agreement here...We don't want to paint with too broad a brush simply because people are unconvinced that there is something wrong with Darwinism as it describes particular scientific positions.

And if we're going to be concerned about indirect mental effects we also have to ask about the toxic effects of religion and even parapsychology.

OTOH, I do think there is a danger in the kind of unproven leaps we see being made, even directly to the public, regarding human nature. Darwin's ideas have been abused in direct fashion, but theories -especially those coming from Science & Religion -  about our reality do seem to affect who we are as a society.

And if we're going to be concerned about indirect mental effects we also have to ask about the toxic effects of religion and even parapsychology.

OTOH, I do think there is a danger in the kind of unproven leaps we see being made, even directly to the public, regarding human nature. Darwin's ideas have been abused in direct fashion, but theories -especially those coming from Science & Religion -  about our reality do seem to affect who we are as a society.

Absolutely agree ... I think I said so earlier when I stated:

Eugenics does show, however, how science in general can be used - much like the bible - to support all kinds of aberrant social behaviour.

I've long thought that society seems to need some form of validation for their actions, whether that validation comes from science, religion or some political ideology. Indeed, those political ideologies often invoke  religion or science for validation. How many US politicians would admit to being non-religious? How often does a news article start with "Scientists say ..."? And, thanks to darwinism, everything we believe, enjoy, prefer, dislike or find repulsive has ceased to be subjective and is now "in my DNA" or "in her genes". These trends, I am quite willing to agree with nbtruthman, are probably socially toxic. I'm just not sure how much of the science is being manipulated by special interests.

Case in point with a touch of synchronicity thrown in - I happened across this article while browsing other stuff.

DNA Pioneer James Watson Loses Honorary Titles Over Racist Comments

Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist James Watson has been stripped of honorary titles awarded to him by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), a Long Island-based non-profit research institution long linked with the scientist. The decision follows the latest episode in Watson's decades-long pattern of racist remarks.

Watson’s accomplishments, including his role in the discovery of DNA’s double helix structure, have long been overshadowed by his "unsubstantiated and reckless personal opinions," as a CSHL statement describes. In 2007, he told former protégé Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really.” Watson later apologized for these comments. In a recent interview featured in the new PBS documentary “American Masters: Decoding Watson,” however, Watson was asked if his thinking on the relationship between race and intelligence had shifted. The now 90-year-old doubled down, replying, “No, not at all,” before adding that he attributed purported variations in “the average between blacks and whites on I.Q. tests” to genetics.

The article goes on to say ...

Watson’s claims have no basis in actual scientific research. Returning to Watson’s latest comments regarding race, National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins tells The New York Times’ Harmon that most intelligence experts attribute differences in I.Q. testing mainly to “environmental, not genetic, differences.”

Collins echoes sentiments shared in the CSHL statement, concluding, “It is disappointing that someone who made such groundbreaking contributions to science is perpetuating such scientifically unsupported and hurtful beliefs.”

It's amusing that there is another consideration at play, simply that IQ testing beyond determining certain learning disabilities is nearly (completely?) worthless:

IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

This debate seems to be - at least in its recent incarnation - in the early stages of argument so we'll have to wait and see what comes out of it. I wish Taleb could make an argument divorced from his personal belief in his own wittiness, though I have to admit I'd need a strong stats refresher to truly judge the merits of his argument.

Personally I've done incredibly well on certain tests only to do miserably in context & vice versa. I was almost held back in 2nd grade due to poor math scores but graduated w/ honors for my maths undergradutate. I'd blame my school system pre-college, and praise my college.

So personally I do think Taleb is correct that interest, what he calls "skin in the game", can make an incredible amount of difference. Same with thinking one has a "fresh start", abandoning doubt about one's ability.

But is any of the above in contradiction of "Darwinism"? I suppose the idea that mentality can have positive causal effects, this isn't technically an argument against materialism nor Darwinism.

It's amusing that there is another consideration at play, simply that IQ testing beyond determining certain learning disabilities is nearly (completely?) worthless:

IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

This debate seems to be - at least in its recent incarnation - in the early stages of argument so we'll have to wait and see what comes out of it. I wish Taleb could make an argument divorced from his personal belief in his own wittiness, though I have to admit I'd need a strong stats refresher to truly judge the merits of his argument.

Personally I've done incredibly well on certain tests only to do miserably in context & vice versa. I was almost held back in 2nd grade due to poor math scores but graduated w/ honors for my maths undergradutate. I'd blame my school system pre-college, and praise my college.

So personally I do think Taleb is correct that interest, what he calls "skin in the game", can make an incredible amount of difference. Same with thinking one has a "fresh start", abandoning doubt about one's ability.

But is any of the above in contradiction of "Darwinism"? I suppose the idea that mentality can have positive causal effects, this isn't technically an argument against materialism nor Darwinism.

Re. this discussion of social Darwinism and especially of IQ as to whether it is at least partially genetically determined and breedable, it seems to me that the extreme sensitivity of the issue and political correctness rule in the discussion. Perhaps that is best.