many studies have highlighted the effect of education, parents, genes, environment, etc.

Yes, but let me emphasize the important part of that argument: "then he should not be held responsible and left alone". That's a normative, not a descriptive claim. It is also entirely generic: every single human being should not be held responsible -- right?

I'd wager there is enough money in the first world to give everyone a "decent" life

For how long?

You're assuming there is a magical neverending pot of money from which you can simple grab and give out. What happens in a few years when you run out?

a common argument is

It might well be a common argument, but the correct question is whether it's a valid argument.

we anyway ought to help everyone

Using a less sympathetic expression this is also known as the forced redistribution of wealth. There is an issue, though, well summed up by the quote usually attributed to Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".

Would this description pass an ideological Turing test?

It seems to me (leftish) that it's pointing at something correct but oversimplifying.

In so far as Lycce's analysis is correct, I should be looking at people in difficulty and saying "there's nothing wrong with their abilities, but society has screwed them over, and for that reason they should be helped". I might say that sometimes -- e.g., when looking at a case of alleged sexual discrimination -- but in that case my disagreement with those who take the other position isn't philosophical, it's a matter of empirical fact. (Unless either side takes that position without regard to the evidence in any given case, which I don't think I do and wouldn't expect the more reasonable sort of rightist to do either.)

But it's not what I'd say about, say, someone who has had no job for a year and is surviving on government benefits. Because that would suggest that if in fact they had no job because they simply had no marketable skills, then I should be saying "OK, then let them starve". Which I wouldn't. I would say: no, we don't let them starve, because part of being civilized is not letting people starve even if for one reason or another they're not useful.

We might then have an argument -- my hypothetical rightist and I -- about whether a policy of letting some people starve results in more people working for fear of starvation, hence more prosperity, hence fewer people actually starving in the end. I hope I'd be persuadable by evidence and argument, but most likely I'd be looking for reasons to broaden the safety net and Hypothetical Rightist would be looking for reasons to narrow it. That may be because of differences in opinion about "personal responsibility" (as Lycce suggests) or in compassion (as I might suggest if feeling uncharitable) or in realism (as H.R. might suggest if feeling uncharitable) but I don't think it has much to do with societal influence trumping individual capabilities.

I think Lycce's analysis works better to explain left/right differences in attitudes to the conspicuously successful. H.R. might say: "look, this person has been smart and worked hard and done something people value, and deserves to be richly rewarded". I might be more inclined to say "yes indeed, but (1) here are some other people who are as smart and hardworking and doing valuable things but much poorer and (2) this person's success is also the result of others' contributions". And if you round that off to "societal influence versus individual capabilities" you're not so far off.

In uncharitable mood, my mental model of people on the right isn't quite "self-interested and evil" but "working for the interests of the successful". (When in slightly less uncharitable mood, I will defend that a little -- success is somewhat correlated with doing useful things, thinking clearly, not harming other people too overtly, etc., and there's something to be said for promoting the interests of those people.)

I would guess (not very confidently) that people on the right will be more inclined to agree with Lycce's analysis, and (one notch less confidently still) that Lycce identifies more with the right than with the left.

Would this description pass an ideological Turing test?

One major difference between left and right is the stance on personal responsibility.

Leftist intellectuals (tends to) think society influence trumps individual capabilities, so people are not responsible for their misfortunes and deserve to be helped. Whereas Rightist have the opposite view (related).

This seems trivial, especially in hindsight. But I hardly ever see it mentioned and in most discussions the right side treat the left as foolish and irrational and the left thinks right people are self-interested and evil rather than simply having a different philosophical opinion.

I guess this is part of the bigger picture on political discourse, it is always easier to dehumanise an opponent than to admit is point is as valid as ours.

We should not forget that from an evolutionary perspective (if we regard groups as the players) it is advantageous to have at least some bias in favor of the group you belong to. Groups which don't do this, are out-competed by groups who do.

Of course, too much bias leads to extremism. However, no bias at all might lead to the extinction of the group in question.

If one is perfectly rational (omniscience would even be better), yes, otherwise I do not think it is a good idea for a lot of reasons. Just on the top of my head :

It is very hard to be accurate, let alone objective, when analysing "impact on society" or "quality of character", and the result is dependent on the criteria used.

When there is a big variability within a group (race, genre or whatever), statistics are not very useful and you should end up with a better model by getting to know the person.

Anchoring effect : People are bad at updating evidence when given a first information, there are already enough problems with stereotypes without making it official.

Given a set of parameters, there would be strong incentives to neglect others parameters or to game the system.

Personal responsibility : One qualities depends on a lot things, what are we taking into account? Nature? Nurture? Nothing?

I am confused about free will. I tried to read about it (notably from the sequences) but am still not convinced.

I make choices, all the time, sure, but why do I chose one solution in particular?

My answer would be the sum of my knoledge and past experiences (nurture) and my genome (nature), with quantum randomness playing a role as well, but I can't see where does free will intervene.

It feels like there is something basic I don't understand, but I can't grasp it.

I am somewhat new to LW, so I only know the "eternal september" period.

Even tough the contributions and the comments do not have the same quality as the old content, there are still (in my opinion) some interesting posts and discussions, so I'd prefer not archive LW.

The use of LW as focal point would really interest me since I am a bit lost in the diaspora, the other two points are also good and deserve to be implemented.