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

171–180 of 207 posts

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#171

Post by canoebuilder »

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.

You understand genetic similarity does not mean you look similar or come from the same tribe necessarily?

That's exactly what it means. Knowing what we know about sexual reproduction and trait heredity what else could it mean? It's not like half your genome spontaneously arises in a zygote in some random location half way around the world.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#172

Post by canoebuilder »

ThomPete wrote: post #5

Anyone know if the genetic similarities that we become friends around according to the study aren't related to race? To me that would be the most interesting part (if it wasn't). I am pretty sceptic about this study and it seems kind of filled with opportunity for interpretation and bias plus have no idea of the data set.

As other's have mentioned in this thread I believe the group under study were primarily, if not all, Europeans. So in that case in a sense the genetic similarites weren't related to race because race wasn't a variable.

But as far the relation of genetics and genetic similarities to race, all genetics are related to race.

In terms of the fact that a single Adenine molecule alone is fairly useless, it is only when that molecule is combined into the structure of a genome that it takes on meaning[0], and genomes have a race, so I don't think in that sense there are any genes or genetic similarities that aren't related to race.

Every member of a race is more genetically related to every other member of that race than they are to any member of any other race.

What "genetic similarities" could there be that are more similar across races than within races?

[0]"Meaning" at the level under discussion in terms of human relationships and whatnot.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#173

Post by canoebuilder »

elchief wrote: post #139

And don't we fall in love with people that are genetically different? Something about not liking the smell of relatives

Only in the genetically different immune systems as discussed in this article, otherwise opposites don't really attract. I don't think it would be that surprising to find similar results(maybe less, but still greater than random in terms of similarity) among married couples.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#174

Post by canoebuilder »

Is it anymore likely that people with 1% genetic similarity have that connection randomly than the possibility they in fact share g-g-great-grandparents? i.e. 2 slots in the 32 level of their family tree, or what if they are double fifth cousins, sharing four slots at the 64 level?(is that math correct?)

So in effect for these similarities to present, they have to be cousins on some level right? Whether that is sharing N slots at the 2048 level, or some other combination?

In a sense all of humanity are cousins, and races are clusters with a higher coefficient of cousin-ness than the global average.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#175

Post by i_cannot_hack »

aaron695 wrote: post #161
i_cannot_hack wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In that case I would like them to define a lower bound of a "measurable difference" and give a clear case why the effect is obviously higher than that. Simply saying it's obvious when many people actually disagree is not very constructive.

I'm not saying they are wrong, I just disagree with the tone.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#176

Post by govg »

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…

One thing you might be mixing up is population vs individual. If you hold some sort of hiring process where the skill tested is similar to that tested in marathon running, then yes, Kenyans will tend to do better as a population. That does not mean you should actively discourage everyone else from applying. Your process should be blind to race/class of applicants, if some race/class does show a higher affinity towards specific skills, that will be the natural outcome of your process.

TL;DR - Don't hire only Kenyans, that's discrimination. You might end up with a lot of Kenyans if you hire only marathoners, but that's not the same.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#177

Post by coldtea »

subroutine wrote: post #68
Real_S wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you believe these findings though? (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…

>some suggesting personal attributes like obesity, smoking, and happiness arise via 'social contagion', that is, behavioral propensities are transmitted over social networks.

Don't know about happiness, but regarding smoking and obesity this seems so obvious to not even need a study (excluding pathological causes for obesity of course which are fewer and far between in people compared to the epidemic rates of obesity we see).

And perhaps happiness is quite impacted by living among other "positive looking/happy/chilled out" people as well -- it sure doesn't help if you're into a social network of depressed people, grumpiness and misery.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#178

Post by nv-vn »

bdamm wrote: post #169
corporateslave3 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree but even leaving that comment aside, the OP is saying you aren't allowed to talk about it openly. "Allowed" does not imply a government here, but society/employers/etc. If your employer fires you for saying "fuck", clearly you aren't allowed to say "fuck" at work.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#179

Post by foldr »

canoebuilder wrote: post #170
foldr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The point is a very simple one. People who appear similar, or have a similar cultural background (and hence belong to the same "race" in American terms) are often no more similar genetically than two randomly selected members of the population.

Re: Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)

#180

Post by ionised »

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.

If spreading your genes is your only goal in life, sure.
Post reply on HN