Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters? • Hacker News Board

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#71

Post by lifeisstillgood » Mon, Sep 06, 2021, 9:16 PM UTC

syops wrote: post #56

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like to feel the same way as your colleagues about "everyone can learn to code". I can definitely say that there are many people for whom it is a struggle - even those on college courses. But a hundred years ago we could easily have the same conversation about simply reading and writing - they (the poor, women, or "lower class" ) luke not be taught to read. But it turns out that if you start young enough, and put e…

I can accept your belief, in principle, about putting enough effort in early education and that lack of such efforts contributes to poor outcomes in college. I also think though that some people just can’t grok algebra. You would agree that a mentally disabled person can’t learn algebra, right? So where is the line below which a person can’t learn algebra. I suspect it is much higher than being mentally disabled.

I am not sure what "mentally disabled" means in this context.

I would be surprised that a psychiatrist would find it a useful term - in the same way that any doctor would not look at the paralympics and see only one illness / disability but dozens of conditions.

I am fairly certain there are Rain Man like people who can do algebra or calculus but would for most people sit under the term "disabled".

Perhaps it might be good for you to ask, "the people I see who can do algebra also can act in certain other ways, socially and mathematically. How much am I looking for people who can do maths, people who can do maths like I do, and people like me who can do maths"

Edit: yes I suspect I sit to the left of you, but the important takeaway here is not that some people are more "intelligent" than others (I agree for whatever definition we choose) but that raising the education level of all in society massively benefits us all. Oh and ranking peoples value in society based on intelligence is not a good idea. It's only just above ranking on physical disability, or your parents aristocratic connections.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#72

Post by zozbot234 » Mon, Sep 06, 2021, 9:16 PM UTC

sjwalter wrote: post #33

shashwatak wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

perhaps some people cannot learn algebra / calculus the way it is traditionally taught in the classroom. perhaps the students who are failing just need a different environment, more time, more patience, different resources?

Obviously there are people who couldn't learn a given topic under one type of educational regime but who could under a different regime. But that doesn't eliminate the obvious: Some people can't learn a given topic at all, under any circumstances. OP's example of the mentally retarded (which I learned recently is a valid medical descriptor) is just an extreme example. It's so funny watching people scramble to avoid a…

Look, there's a "valid medical descriptor" for grandpa who is in a nursing home with Alzheimer's disease, but this kind of thing is totally immaterial to people who are in school today. There's no way that they'd have that level of cognitive impairment. Saying that "some people just can't learn" so-called "advanced" math such as college algebra and calculus, or programming for that matter, is just pointless speculation with zero evidence to back it. Most likely they can, we just can't be assed to teach them effectively.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#73

Post by lifeisstillgood » Mon, Sep 06, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

tsywke44 wrote: post #42

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like to feel the same way as your colleagues about "everyone can learn to code". I can definitely say that there are many people for whom it is a struggle - even those on college courses. But a hundred years ago we could easily have the same conversation about simply reading and writing - they (the poor, women, or "lower class" ) luke not be taught to read. But it turns out that if you start young enough, and put e…

Kids are savant at learning ”muscle memory skills”. But there is a reason 2nd graders dont do book reviews of classic literature. Even though they can absolutely read the complex words out loud on autopilot any day of the week.

Yeah. it isn't that just saying there is a difference between a 10 year old and a 19 year old

Edit: Actually, I think your premise is wrong. Children don't read words they don't understand "like muscle memory". The differences in meaning between, idk, betrothed, engaged, wedded and living in sin are superficial but they carry with them implications of social value, history and more. Children are supposed to read books and pick up context and understand meaning as they go along. We don't expect a 10 year old to grok calculus any more than we expect them to grok social/sexual arrangements. But we have different standards for 19 year olds - in the case of sexual arrangements it's obvious why. Perhaps less so for calculus.

Reading and comprehension levels are hard to guage for this reason - at a certain point the words are placeholders for political positions. And it's hard to tell if someone does not understand the word or disagrees with the politics. Please see every election for past ten years for reference

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#74

Post by syops » Mon, Sep 06, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

myWindoonn wrote: post #31

syops wrote: post #2

From the article: Over the next year, a biosciences working group revised the program’s funding guidelines, stipulating in the final draft that it would not support any research into the first-order effects of genes on behavior or social outcomes. The fact that this area is controversial suggests to me that it is worth exploration. I’ve taught mathematics at community colleges for over 20 years and I’m absolutely con…

Hello, fellow mathematician. The first step in your proof which doesn't convince me is the claim that, in general, "levels of intelligence" exist, admit a partial order, and can reliably predict whether certain people can learn certain topics. In general, you'll find that "leftists" believe that psychometrics is bogus in terms of science. Instead, it masquerades as science in order to fool the public into believing t…

I don’t claim that there is a partial order to intelligence. Indeed, I think it’s clear that no such can exist. Let me put it this way. The set of people who can’t learn algebra (using any reasonable standard for this) is nonempty as it includes the set of mentally retarded people. I further suspect that this set is considerably larger than the set of mentally retarded people.

I further suspect but didn’t state this that if one doesn’t have exposure to algebra growing up then it is extremely difficult to learn as an adult. Children are easier to brain wash and in low level Mathematics we do a great deal of brain washing.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#75

Post by TameAntelope » Mon, Sep 06, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #68

TameAntelope wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you see the negative consequences of past inquiry as, at the very least, a cautionary tale? The idea of, "Science at all cost!" should, by now, be thoroughly debunked for a number of very clear reasons, some specifically in this area of genetics and psychology (is there an exception for Poe's Law when talking about genetic behavioral outcomes?). We must be careful, and Dr. Harden does seem to understand that,…

That doesn't disagree with anything I said. Being careful in scientific inquiry is fine; saying, "we shouldn't research X at all, because maybe the knowledge would be used badly" is not. If there were only possible negatives, it might be more understandable, but of course that's not true. Learning more about how genetics affect behavior could, for example, lead to better treatments for behavioral disorders.

Not every comment needs to disagree with its parent. :)

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#76

Post by DangitBobby » Mon, Sep 06, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

People strongly want to believe that intelligence doesn't have a strong genetic component, I think mainly for moral reasons.

If not everyone can be expected to learn and be proficient in everything due to genetics, then suddenly merit itself is also based strongly on luck, and now the belief that people with greater merit should have better lives no longer seems fair. Intelligence is now just another gift to the fortunate who are destined to have a better life. How can you feel good about using your considerable advantages to the detriment of others if your merit is the result of a jackpot paid out at birth?

Even if you believe that with enough time and perseverance you can overcome your lack of intelligence compared to another person, you have to ignore the fact that having to spend more time on something (but actually, everything) than everyone else will put you further and further and further behind everyone else in a way that compounds quickly.

Modern society is ostensibly structured this way: the smart will win. If intelligence becomes genetic, it can instead be said that "the lucky will win." And successful people desperately want that to not be the case, because they want to believe they deserve their considerable advantages. And they want to be guilt free about the miserable lives some people lead; it's their fault for being stupid, after all.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#77

Post by beej71 » Mon, Sep 06, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

syops wrote: post #51

TameAntelope wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, as it's not a sufficiently difficult topic to warrant some kind of genetic stratification. Life circumstance stratification, certainly, and you will get no disagreement from me that some people don't have the time or energy necessary to devote to something as not-immediately-useful as calculus, but from an intellect perspective, no. Everyone who is not experiencing some kind of mental illness has the inte…

It’s not a sufficiently difficult topic for you. Have you ever taught algebra to a classroom of people from a wide range of intellectual capabilities and experiences? Are you even aware of some of the pain points to learning algebra?

Is "and experiences" different than environment?

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#78

Post by pseudalopex » Mon, Sep 06, 2021, 9:26 PM UTC

chuckee wrote: post #50

shashwatak wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

perhaps some people cannot learn algebra / calculus the way it is traditionally taught in the classroom. perhaps the students who are failing just need a different environment, more time, more patience, different resources?

That's not really rebutting the original claim, is it? If, due to genetics, they need a different environment, resources, more time and patience.. how is that not agreeing with the premise that genetics matter?

Whose original claim? syops didn't just say genetics matter. They said some people can't learn algebra or calculus.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#79

Post by zozbot234 » Mon, Sep 06, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

DangitBobby wrote: post #64

TameAntelope wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do I require evidence to not believe something you've stated? Or do you require evidence to assert something you've stated? I don't think the onus is on me to prove you wrong, so much as the onus is on you to prove that your experience is scientifically rigorous and representative of more than just your personal experience. And to be clear, I don't doubt that many people "can't" learn calculus in the same way I "can'…

It's pretty clear you've never instructed a remedial math class. My university would conditionally admit students who had a math score below a certain threshold on their ACT, I think it was 19 or something. Anyway, as part of their admittance criteria, they had to attend an after class lab for an additional hour an a half for a total of three hours per week dedicated to learning pre-algrebra. There were four modules…

> There were four modules where they would do some reading, work through some example problems through interactive software, and then have some homework to work through that was almost identical to the examples.

This just does not look like a universally effective way of teaching to me, irrespective of the topic. It's hardly any wonder that some people fell through the cracks if they were unfamiliar with the subject in the first place. What about leveraging stuff that's actually been tried and tested, like the Khan Academy videos and their automated interactive, school-like environment?

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#80

Post by TulliusCicero » Mon, Sep 06, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

TameAntelope wrote: post #75

TulliusCicero wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't disagree with anything I said. Being careful in scientific inquiry is fine; saying, "we shouldn't research X at all, because maybe the knowledge would be used badly" is not. If there were only possible negatives, it might be more understandable, but of course that's not true. Learning more about how genetics affect behavior could, for example, lead to better treatments for behavioral disorders.

Not every comment needs to disagree with its parent. :)

Fair.

In my mind, there's a distinction between science-as-knowledge and science-as-practice. There are obviously many potentially unethical scientific practices, but I don't think gaining scientific knowledge can ever be wrong, in the sense of merely having the knowledge itself being wrong (of course, it's possible for it to have been gathered in an unethical way).