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

161–170 of 207 posts

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#161

Post by aaron695 »

i_cannot_hack wrote: post #131
RivieraKid wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I took the comment as saying obviously it's not "millionth of a millionth of a percent". You are strawpersoning here.

There are going to be definite real world measurable differences.

OP leaves open the possibility, for instance, of cultural differences that have a effect an order or two of magnitude larger though.

Personally I doubt this, but OP seems open to the idea the size might be small.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#162

Post by vidarh »

jawns wrote: post #40
okreallywtf wrote: post #17

I have anecdotally noticed this with tall people and short people, I will notice a group of friends who are all 6'2"+, or who are all <=5'7", both of which seem statistically unlikely. There are plenty of more diverse groups (in terms of height) but its hard to say whether they are work friends or something else where you have less overall choice.

A few possible explanations: * People who are statistical outliers tend to seek out similar outliers to form a support network. * People who are involved in activities in which their physical size is pertinent (e.g. dancers in the Rockettes) tend to befriend others in those activities. * If height affects success (whether or not that is warranted) and if friendships are stratified along success-based lines, then you…

Also: One might be more likely to notice groups of mostly tall or mostly short people more than generic, mixed groups.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#163

Post by vidarh »

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #53
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…

> We have intellects, a sense of morality, and a will. Those allow us to drastically curtail what might otherwise be instinctive behaviors. An excerpt from Julian Jaynes's 'Origin of Consciousness' comes to mind here: > Consciousness is a much smaller part of our mental life than we are conscious of, because we cannot be conscious of what we are not conscious of. How simple that is to say; how difficult to appreciate…

Even though it's far from precise, I like Jonathan Haidt's suggestion in The Happiness Hypothesis that our conscious mind is like someone riding an elephant: He can nudge it in this direction or that, and a lot of the time that works. But if the elephant wants to go a different direction, it will, and you're just along for the ride. At which point you can acknowledge you're not in control, or decide where the elephant went is where you really wanted to go all along. Often we choose the latter to retain the illusion of control.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#164

Post by vidarh »

csomar wrote: post #56
matkoboska wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are on a cocktail party. Have had a few drinks with friends. You all start talking about spiders. How they are these wonderful tiny creatures to be protected. You know, they got rid of insects and it's actually good to be above this. After all we have intellects, a sense of morality, and a will. We're not some freaking lobsters driven by phobias. And you know what? At this wonderful evening party, we all agree, t…

> That's why after 30 years of perfect marriage you might do stupid things when 23 year old hot blonde is sexually provoking you. How is that not logical? Spreading your genes to healthy young women seems like a straightforward choice.

It might be beneficial to the propagation of your genes and still really bad for your personal life.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#165

Post by jakobegger »

corporateslave2 wrote: post #16
fatjokes wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess my next question would be are genetically people that have genetic similarities more likely to have similar interests. If that is the case, it would lead to the politically uncomfortable question of different genders or ethnic groups being more likely to have particular interests.

But you aren't aloud to talk about that openly.

It’s obvious that gender and genetics have an effect on interests. I doubt that anybody challenges that, and you can go talk about that without anyone raising an eyebrow.

What is a problem is if you use that to justify discrimination. Just because members of a demographic are statistically different, it isn’t okay to treat individuals differently because they belong to a certain demographic. And that’s what people are complaining about!

People don’t complain when you say: “A lot of the fastest marathon runners are from Kenia”. People will complain if you use that fact to justify an imbalance in your workforce: “Well, it’s obvious that we hire only people from Kenia since marathons show they are much faster!”

So why do companies fire people who say stuff like that? Because discrimination is stupid from a business point of view: variance within demographics is much larger than variance of the mean between demographics. So if you hire people based on them being part of a “good” demographic, you will end up with worse hires than if you actually selected for individual aptitude.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#166

Post by vorg »

tzs wrote: post #151
vorg wrote: post #113

There was a book I read in the 1970's about "sociobiology" that explained this. If I remember right: People share exactly 50% of their genes with their parents and children, but only probably 50% of genes with siblings -- it could be 51%, or could be 48%. To preserve their own genes, people will feel altruistic to give their lives for three of their siblings (about 150% of their own genes saved), but not for one sibl…

> People share exactly 50% of their genes with their parents and children, but only probably 50% of genes with siblings -- it could be 51%, or could be 48%. I don't see why the percent shared could not be higher than 50% with your parents or children. You can share a gene with someone that you did not get it from or give it to. For example, suppose some particular gene has three variants, V1, V2, and V3. If your moth…

What I wrote is what I got from reading the book a long time ago. Of course biology has advanced since the 1970's -- and of course my memory or understanding of it could be faulty because I read it as a teenager.

What you wrote might explain why parents have "favorite" children they're more likely to give their life for.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#167

Post by corporateslave2 »

jakobegger wrote: post #165
corporateslave2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you aren't aloud to talk about that openly.

It’s obvious that gender and genetics have an effect on interests. I doubt that anybody challenges that, and you can go talk about that without anyone raising an eyebrow. What is a problem is if you use that to justify discrimination. Just because members of a demographic are statistically different, it isn’t okay to treat individuals differently because they belong to a certain demographic. And that’s what people ar…

I don't mean to start a flame war here, but when you say:

People don’t complain when you say: “A lot of the fastest marathon runners are from Kenia”. People will complain if you use that fact to justify an imbalance in your workforce: “Well, it’s obvious that we hire only people from Kenia since marathons show they are much faster!”

This is precisely the point. If objectively they are better, why is it discrimination to only hire them? Definitely you give everyone the opportunity to work for you, but if a singular group always performs better, is it really your fault? And if society did determine that it was your fault, how long could that go on for? Forever? How long can that charade last? Hasn't a Darwinian economy (capitalism) done the best ever for man kind (massively raised standards of living over the last 200 years).

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#168

Post by [deleted] »

corporateslave2 wrote: post #167
jakobegger wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s obvious that gender and genetics have an effect on interests. I doubt that anybody challenges that, and you can go talk about that without anyone raising an eyebrow. What is a problem is if you use that to justify discrimination. Just because members of a demographic are statistically different, it isn’t okay to treat individuals differently because they belong to a certain demographic. And that’s what people ar…

I don't mean to start a flame war here, but when you say: People don’t complain when you say: “A lot of the fastest marathon runners are from Kenia”. People will complain if you use that fact to justify an imbalance in your workforce: “Well, it’s obvious that we hire only people from Kenia since marathons show they are much faster!” This is precisely the point. If objectively they are better, why is it discrimination…

[deleted]

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#169

Post by bdamm »

corporateslave3 wrote: post #45
bdamm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: Here we are, talking about it openly. Even Mr. Damore who previously was employed at Google was and is able to talk about it openly.

he was fired?

Free speech doesn't mean you get to keep your job when you say it. It means it isn't illegal or impossible to speak your opinion. That doesn't mean being as ass has no consequences.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#170

Post by canoebuilder »

foldr wrote: post #27
fatjokes wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess my next question would be are genetically people that have genetic similarities more likely to have similar interests. If that is the case, it would lead to the politically uncomfortable question of different genders or ethnic groups being more likely to have particular interests.

Ethnic groups are defined by appearance and cultural history, not by genes. Many ethnic groups (e.g. African Americans) are extremely diverse genetically.

If you're talking about the fact that many African Americans are about 20% European genetically, but many share "hip hop culture" or African American culture, or whatever, that seems somewhat of a contrived point and it's not clear exactly what the point is you're meaning to make.

If your talking about the often vaunted genetic diversity on the continent of Africa, that has no bearing on the existence of clusters of relative genetic similarity around the world we have come to refer to variously as ethnicity, race, population group, etc. In fact that African genetic diversity supports the reality of distinct population groups and ethnicities because it is a bunch of genetic material that other groups don't have.

The very basis for ethnicity/race/population groups is a genomic "alphabet"/string within certain bounds. In considering the global level distinctions between populations it makes no difference the level of genetic diversity in any particular group.

The defining factor is that various groups share traits that no other group does.

Asians and Europeans have stretches of DNA that we've determined through the magic of modern science come from an extinct species of human called Neanderthals. None of these stretches of DNA are found in Africans.

Likewise, Africans have stretches of DNA that come from as yet identified extinct species, these stretches of DNA aren't found in Asians or Europeans.

Then of course there are the myriad other genetic structures that while having origins in the ancestors of all living humans have nonetheless diverged through the process of evolution over the millennia into reliable genetic markers for the various population groups.

And it is true that ethnic groups are defined as well by visual appearance, for example cranium shape and size, nostril diameter, length of nasal bridge, hair color/texture etc. but these things aren't the result of members of your culture gathering around at your birth and molding these things like clay, these things are encoded in genes and what molded their shape into your genes are evolutionary pressures in your ancestral environment.

Post reply on HN