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

The ‘Geno-Economists’ Say DNA Can Predict Our Chances of Success

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 82 posts

Re: The ‘Geno-Economists’ Say DNA Can Predict Our Chances of Success

#51

Post by asianthrowaway »

nabla9 wrote: post #44
asianthrowaway wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Points 1 2 and 4 are pretty well studied in academia concerning intelligence. Intelligence is defined as "g", and it's 60 to 80% heritable depending on the study (leaning towards 80%). More info for the curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

It's easy to misunderstand what heritable or even genetically heritable means. Consider just few hypothetical ways genes can increase g-factor: * Metabolic trait increases nutrition intake in high calorie low nutrition junk food environment. This leads to faster brain development. * Improved immune system against certain parasites that makes individual healthier and leads to statistically higher g-factor. Genes that…

Huh, what? Are you talking about the appearance of new genetic mutations? I think evolutionary timescales are a bit longer than a few generations.

Anyway, I don't understand how this is supposed to explain what heritability is...

Re: The ‘Geno-Economists’ Say DNA Can Predict Our Chances of Success

#52

Post by asianthrowaway »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #41
asianthrowaway wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Points 1 2 and 4 are pretty well studied in academia concerning intelligence. Intelligence is defined as "g", and it's 60 to 80% heritable depending on the study (leaning towards 80%). More info for the curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

"heritability" is a mix of genetics and environment.

No: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability.

Perhaps you meant that at any given time, the heritability of a trait depends on the "state" of the population, and that heritability values can change over time. This is true, but I don't understand why you'd bring it up.

Re: The ‘Geno-Economists’ Say DNA Can Predict Our Chances of Success

#53

Post by coldtea »

hirundo wrote: post #46
coldtea wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The above statement is false. That's more clear than ever and geno-economics contributes to that clarity. If you live your life by this assumption you will get many important things wrong. "It's bad to kill people" -- this statement is also false. There's no logical necessity that says its bad to kill people, it's only a utility calculation (whether you get caught, what the profit will be vs repercussions etc). Sti…

> It just means that all people are equally worth, not to some utility function, but absolutely as human beings. In order to believe that worth can be determined independent of a utility function, you need a standard of absolute worth. Even religious statements of worth are based on utility to the deity. Biological statements of worth regard utility toward the population or ecosystem. I can't think of a non-utilitari…

>In order to believe that worth can be determined independent of a utility function, you need a standard of absolute worth

Or you can just dispense with the notion of worth of a person as person altogether -- then you don't need to "determine" anything. That's what the "equal" part means in that sentence: don't try to determine".

You can determine the skills of a surgeon, the education of a scholar, the speed of an athlete, the voice of an actor, the coding skills of a developer, etc.

But you should not try to determine the worth of a person as person. That is, when you don't care to measure something something specific, you should not consider someone inferior.

>Even religious statements of worth are based on utility to the deity.

Not really, at least not in the religions I've known. At least in (non-protestant) christianity people have absolute utility.

Re: The ‘Geno-Economists’ Say DNA Can Predict Our Chances of Success

#54

Post by clavalle »

From the paper itself:

>it suggests that the GWAS effect-size estimates may be biased upward by correlation between educational attainment and a rearing envi-ronment conducive to educational attainment.

A full 60% of the already modest 'effect' of correlated genes can be immediately attributed to environment according to their sibling study.

Re: The ‘Geno-Economists’ Say DNA Can Predict Our Chances of Success

#55

Post by asianthrowaway »

coldtea wrote: post #35
asianthrowaway wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hypothetical situation: if there was devised a cheap and easy to administer "genetic IQ test", would you oppose an NGO whose mission statement would be to administer this test to low income inner city kids, and offer scholarships or vouchers to good schools to those exhibiting the highest "genetic IQ"?

Yes. Who said those with the highest IQ should be educated with priority? If anything, those with lowest IQs could use quality education some more...

Low IQ people can only be educated to the extent of their abilities. If anything, they need specialized education which is more rote-learning based and slower than that of the general population.

Maybe you think that education increases intelligence? Education increases intelligence about as much as playing basketball makes you taller.

Re: The ‘Geno-Economists’ Say DNA Can Predict Our Chances of Success

#56

Post by asianthrowaway »

invalidOrTaken wrote: post #43
asianthrowaway wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hypothetical situation: if there was devised a cheap and easy to administer "genetic IQ test", would you oppose an NGO whose mission statement would be to administer this test to low income inner city kids, and offer scholarships or vouchers to good schools to those exhibiting the highest "genetic IQ"?

On the contrary; given education's effect on fertility, you'd want to offer scholarships to those with the lowest "genetic iq."

Correlation does not imply causation.

Re: The ‘Geno-Economists’ Say DNA Can Predict Our Chances of Success

#57

Post by asianthrowaway »

dahfizz wrote: post #33
asianthrowaway wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hypothetical situation: if there was devised a cheap and easy to administer "genetic IQ test", would you oppose an NGO whose mission statement would be to administer this test to low income inner city kids, and offer scholarships or vouchers to good schools to those exhibiting the highest "genetic IQ"?

I mean this is basically done now, but with standardized testing as a proxy for what a "genetic IQ" would measure better. That said, I don't think it will ever catch on because the associations with eugenics and the like is too strong.

Not entirely true, standardized testing kind of breaks down for really low income populations. It's a good proxy for a population living in a functional environment and attending school regularly, but a poor one in highly dysfunctional environments.

Re: The ‘Geno-Economists’ Say DNA Can Predict Our Chances of Success

#58

Post by asianthrowaway »

dragonwriter wrote: post #49
asianthrowaway wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hypothetical situation: if there was devised a cheap and easy to administer "genetic IQ test", would you oppose an NGO whose mission statement would be to administer this test to low income inner city kids, and offer scholarships or vouchers to good schools to those exhibiting the highest "genetic IQ"?

> would you oppose an NGO whose mission statement would be to administer this test to low income inner city kids, and offer scholarships or vouchers to good schools to those exhibiting the highest "genetic IQ"? I'd think it was flawed even before any ethical considerations, since the environmental factors that the poor tend to be more exposed to that lead to downward deviations from genetic potential have had signifi…

> since the environmental factors that the poor tend to be more exposed to that lead to downward deviations from genetic potential have had significant impact before schooling starts (in many cases even in utero),

It's true that adverse environmental conditions can lower IQ, but not whole standards of deviation. There are many people who grew up dirt poor and yet managed to achieve academically, which if intelligence was really irreparably impaired by a poor environment would not be possible.

> and school performance numbers today basically just reflect the student body (and in very large part the engagement and socioeconomic background of the parents) they are dealt more than outcome differences produced by the school

Which is exactly why a genetic test would be more accurate! It would not take into account differences due to quality of schooling.

Re: The ‘Geno-Economists’ Say DNA Can Predict Our Chances of Success

#59

Post by you_owe_me »

pault wrote: post #30
you_owe_me wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. I was born ugly, so bring on genetic enhancement

I'm not sure if you're joking or not (it did make me chuckle), but as dystopian as it sounds, I would prefer to live in a world where everyone is beautiful, since it would eliminate barriers for less attractive folks, and eliminate advantages for the more attractive ones. Of course, if we do ever learn how to change our physical appearance with genetics, the fashion industry will just change the definition of "beauti…

I was half-joking, but you do have a point. Nothing guarantees the standards of beauty will remain the same.

Re: The ‘Geno-Economists’ Say DNA Can Predict Our Chances of Success

#60

Post by robotrout »

olliej wrote: post #26

To an extent that’s true - genetics can detect your race and gender, both of which have a very strong correlation (although definitely not causation) with success. That said ever since we have been able to run genetic tests people have tried to use them to demonstrate that group A is “worse” than everyone else, or the group B is superior. Before that they tried to use phrenology. In every case they successfully came…

Those studied in this article were all white.
Post reply on HN