Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 207 posts

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#131

Post by i_cannot_hack »

RivieraKid wrote: post #36
flatline wrote: post #23

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…

> 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. The answer is obvious here: yes. The only question is the size of the effect.

> The answer is obvious here: yes.

Let's say the statistical size of the effect is something around a millionth of a millionth of a percent, then I think most people would answer the question with "no" and be understood correctly by everyone. These kinds of questions almost always have a "big enough to have a perceptible impact"-clause implied. Pretending they don't feels needlessly pedantic.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#132

Post by emodendroket »

colordrops wrote: post #127
emodendroket wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really hard for me to see how you can treat "genetically similar tribes" and races as unrelated concepts.

The concept of races and racism are completely orthogonal.

Well, that isn't really true, since the conception of what races exist and who belongs to which shows wide cultural variation.

More to the point, though, racism is an obvious manifestation of the kind of tribalism I think we are talking about and I don't think it's really controversial to argue that it is harmful at least to the marginalized groups. I'd personally even go further and say it harms all parties involved.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#133

Post by Practicality »

Ultimatt wrote: post #108
tosser350 wrote: post #9

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.

You understand genetic similarity does not mean you look similar or come from the same tribe necessarily? Especially since the age of heavier than air flying machines.

Evolution doesn't move fast enough for any technology to be relevant to the discussion of how this works.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#135

Post by emodendroket »

bluthru wrote: post #123
emodendroket wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do smaller towns, but that doesn't seem to stop people from advocating urbanization here.

Urbanization doesn't necessarily regress the issues I'm talking about, especially since cities can still have their own neighborhood and block communities. Urbanization isn't unnatural and it agrees with our tribal instincts. Look at Tokyo: extremely high density with extremely small social unrest. Paris, now a collection of different tribes, can't say the same.

Is that the only thing that's different about Tokyo and Paris? Beijing is over 95% Han Chinese and yet I don't think things look as harmonious.

On another note, I think Japan ends up with kind of a distorted picture since so much of the crime is associated with organized criminal groups with ties to legitimate business and government operating with a degree of openness that I think would surprise most Western observers. Dubro's Yakuza book is a great primer on the topic.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#136

Post by emodendroket »

rublev wrote: post #119
emodendroket wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's why after 30 years of perfect marriage you might do stupid things when 23 year old hot blonde is sexually provoking you. Actually you have to make a number of conscious decisions to have an affair. "It just happened" is an excuse.

Nobody said that. They're saying you cannot reason yourself out of your boner. Just that the impulse will always be there, I just choose to ignore it.

My reading of the post above yours, in the context of the conversation it appears in, is that you cannot overcome your instincts so there's no point in even trying to rein them in. If it just means to say we don't live up to our ideals all the time, well, OK, that's true, but I don't see where it's going.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#137

Post by rwnspace »

pdeuchler wrote: post #115
jawns wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Drawing your argument to its logical conclusion, those that act on such impulses based on their genetics and instincts are less evolved than those who don't. Sounds like something a plantation owner from the antebellum south would agree with. Now obviously anti-racism isn't "the real racism", but I think it's kind of funny that many commentators here seem to think that by defining certain sects of people based on che…

It seems 'evolved' means whatever people want it to mean very early on into these types of discussion. Usually there's a notion floating around of 'more- or less-evolved' that's not very well thought-through. And often this kind of muddying is committed alongside wishful thinking in the first place ('Despite science, I am free will incarnate; it is that which separates man from beast, nobles from savages, wealthy from beggars!').

There are no moral imperatives to be found in genes or epigenetics, only moral factors. Hume's observation about is -> ought is as pressing as ever, despite what Sam Harris might have you think. It's particularly dangerous to believe the former is true, since we make such a habit of expanding and distorting the scope of empirical results to ideological fantasy-land near instantly.

Whether we tightly and uniformly prefer genetically similar friends, whether we conversely happen to like genetically diverse mates, or whether all of these are more generally attendant to environmental factors like diet and disease -- it remains that we can collaboratively use reason to decide on our 'oughts', not just pick the interpretation and scope of 'is' that we prefer at the time. Issues of justice and responsibility seem much more interesting than endlessly turning the wheel of sciencey-tribalism. We struggle enough to figure out how best to treat each other already.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#138

Post by [deleted] »

Practicality wrote: post #133
Ultimatt wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You understand genetic similarity does not mean you look similar or come from the same tribe necessarily? Especially since the age of heavier than air flying machines.

Evolution doesn't move fast enough for any technology to be relevant to the discussion of how this works.

[deleted]

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#140

Post by rawnlq »

emodendroket wrote: post #106
pdeuchler wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you can't discern between justifying racism and pointing out that racism comes from deep seated biological impulses is pretty scary

How else am I supposed to interpret "is that really so bad?" besides justification?

You quoted me but I actually didn't say anything about race or genetics. My original response was to the parent which was claiming that "tribalism is avoidable" and I was arguing against that saying that humans will always self-segregate into tribes so it's unavoidable.

Examples:

- I had a friendship which originally started over shared nostalgia for a cantonese children show

- I was excluded from a group because I didn't know enough american pop culture references to get their jokes

- I stopped eating dinner with another group because I felt awkward being the only one not praying before the meal

- In another group, we only ever talked about programming puzzles and non-programmer friends (such as their girlfriends) learned quickly to leave us alone

All of these groups came together and/or left each other due to unwritten emergent social dynamics. You can never stop these clusters from forming. As long as you have groups/tribes, there will be people excluded based on the that tribe's values. Is that really so bad?

Post reply on HN