61–70 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My experience is short people mostly get ignored in an otherwise tall group.
It works the other way too. I'm relatively tall and when I'm in a loud crowded place hanging around shorter people I have no idea what they are saying to each other.
People need to realize we are built on hardware that is hundreds of millions of years old. We share a similar hormonal dominance hierarchy system with fucking lobsters. You can't just say it's and expect these things to disappear. Tribalism was important for survival, trusting someone who didn't look like you could mean death and thus was selected for over long periods of time.
And then we became human and started not acting like lobsters. We have intellects, a sense of morality, and a will. Those allow us to drastically curtail what might otherwise be instinctive behaviors. I know there are some determinists who say that free will is illusory and we're as much slaves to our genetics and instincts as lobsters are. But it certainly seems as if, in practice, tribalism (at least the clear-cut…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's trivially obvious that they do? The uncomfortable questions are whether people are genetically predisposed to, or naturally have a greater aptitude for, some particular interest, particularly on racial or gender lines. For many physical activities this is a settled question for gender, but that's about all we know. Even this alone is not necessarily controversial, the problem as we've seen time and again…
2.3% greater aptitude for mathematics? Better spot the other races 50 points on the SAT.
People need to realize we are built on hardware that is hundreds of millions of years old. We share a similar hormonal dominance hierarchy system with fucking lobsters. You can't just say it's and expect these things to disappear. Tribalism was important for survival, trusting someone who didn't look like you could mean death and thus was selected for over long periods of time.
And then we became human and started not acting like lobsters. We have intellects, a sense of morality, and a will. Those allow us to drastically curtail what might otherwise be instinctive behaviors. I know there are some determinists who say that free will is illusory and we're as much slaves to our genetics and instincts as lobsters are. But it certainly seems as if, in practice, tribalism (at least the clear-cut…
friends are economically similar and how much money you make relative to the rest of the society depends almost entirely on how much money your parents made relative to the society. Wealth passes alongs genetic lines so does friendship.
What does this say about racism? Segregation?
The article specifically mentions olfactory similarities being pro-friend and immune differences being pro-friend. It didn't mention ethnic markers like melanin, face shape, nose width, ear size, or relative toe length at all. In fact, it said they attempted to control for racial and ethnic differences. How well that was accomplished wasn't really made clear in the article. I can imagine that whether or not cilantro…
> The tendency for friends to have similar genomes might result from people befriending those of similar ancestry, but the duo are confident that isn't the case. Not only did they control for the effect of population structure and ancestry, but the Framingham data is relatively homogeneous in terms of ethnicity, consisting largely of people of European descent. How did they control it? Even amongst Europeans, I imagi…
Population structure is controlled through the use of the structure as a co-factor in the analyses. They use a principal component analysis on the genotypes to estimate the structure, and then use the first few principal components (PCs) as cofactors in the analyses. So if the European population they used consisted of half English and half French participants, then the first PC would likely divide the two. So if Bri…
(original article: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/Supplement_3/10796.full )
To me there are a few things worth highlighting, that are at least tangentially relevant:
1. This article was a PNAS Direct Submission. PNAS Direct Submission, a privilege typically reserved for members of the National Academy of Sciences, is like using trump-card to basically skip peer review. Since NAS members are usually great scientists with a track-record of publishing in high-impact peer reviewed journals, PNAS Direct Submissions are usually saved for pet-projects where the underlying science is... mmmm... of dubious quality. This is not always the case, but when all-star scientists opt for PNAS DS, it's certainly a reason to be speculative.
2. Nick Christakis and James Fowler have teamed up for a number of fancy-ass studies (the type that ensure people will want to write wikipedia pages about them, and lead to TED talk invites); some suggesting personal attributes like obesity, smoking, and happiness arise via 'social contagion', that is, behavioral propensities are transmitted over social networks. And studies like this one, where they find friendship affinities embedded in the genome.
3. I recently read a genome-wide association study (GWAS) with over 400 authors (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28714976). I think 400 authors is way above median, but even relatively tame GWAS typically require a group effort just for data QC. Here, somehow these two guys did it all themselves.
4. Not only did they find that some SNPs were positively correlated, they also found some that were negatively correlated... "Across the whole genome, friends’ genotypes at the single nucleotide polymorphism level tend to be positively correlated (homophilic). In fact, the increase in similarity relative to strangers is at the level of fourth cousins. However, certain genotypes are also negatively correlated (heterophilic) in friends. And the degree of correlation in genotypes can be used to create a “friendship score” that predicts the existence of friendship ties in a hold-out sample." So the HN/Nature title might as well be: "Friends are Genetically similar, and Genetically Different".
> The tendency for friends to have similar genomes might result from people befriending those of similar ancestry, but the duo are confident that isn't the case. Not only did they control for the effect of population structure and ancestry, but the Framingham data is relatively homogeneous in terms of ethnicity, consisting largely of people of European descent. How did they control it? Even amongst Europeans, I imagi…
Framingham, MA is old school New England. I wouldn't be surprised if 75+% of the participants are of direct English/Anglo-Saxon descent, even though the article describes it as "European" descent.
People need to realize we are built on hardware that is hundreds of millions of years old. We share a similar hormonal dominance hierarchy system with fucking lobsters. You can't just say it's and expect these things to disappear. Tribalism was important for survival, trusting someone who didn't look like you could mean death and thus was selected for over long periods of time.