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

Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 756 posts

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#101

Post by TameAntelope »

threatofrain wrote: post #99
TameAntelope wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because I'd expect HN readers to understand an ad hominem when they see one. I could be living in a ditch down by the river, or I could be the leading researcher into how people learn calculus and it wouldn't make a difference with regard to my argument (though, practically speaking if I were the lead researcher on how people learn calculus, I'd be more likely to back my argument up with objective research, and…

Oh, well, if you're a leading researcher in math pedagogy, you should just say so and save time. Such credibility would offer serious firepower to the debate.

I don't think it would or at least should.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#102

Post by TameAntelope »

creato wrote: post #98
TameAntelope wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think any of those things contribute to whether or not I could complete a marathon, though they do contribute to how pleasant the experience would be. The same holds for learning calculus, or doing anything intellectually taxing. It's differing in difficulty for people, however it's not unachievable for anyone who isn't experiencing some kind of mental (or physical, in this marathon example) impairment. All h…

I don't see how if you can agree that it requires varying degrees of effort for different people to run a marathon or learn calculus, that you then think it is impossible that some people won't be able to do those things. Just like the amount of effort required will be small for some, it will be impractically large for others. Even in the theoretical sense, there is only so much time in a day. I also don't think "hea…

Yes, I think it's absolutely worth arguing the difference between "it's hard" and "it's impossible", because those are two fundamentally different things.

You can overcome difficulty, you cannot overcome (by definition) impossibility.

What you keep ignoring in what I'm saying however, is that I do think certain things are impossible for some people. I will never play in the NBA, for example, but that's a far cry from being "very good" at basketball.

Learning calculus and completing a marathon are not the point at which "healthy" (and yes, it's fuzzy, but precision is impossible on this topic) people are sometimes unable to do things. Winning a marathon and getting a Ph.D. in mathematics, I would acquiesce to your argument.

In other words, I think anyone can dabble in anything, but you do need an alignment of genetic and environmental circumstances to be in the top 1% of something. I could be argued into top 10%, but below that, it appears the data supports almost anyone being able to do almost anything, or at least well beyond whatever artificial lines we might draw to discourage people from achieving.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#103

Post by sjwalter »

beej71 wrote: post #86
sjwalter wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So if someone bombs your class, you're certain they're just mentally deficient? And if you're not certain, how can you tell?

I'm a farmer, not a teacher, so I can't answer this question as asked.

But I would speculate that of the set of people who bombed the class, they could fall into a number of buckets. E.g., one bucket is people who were mentally capable of learning the concepts, but were to lazy to put in the effort (then we can quibble about whether inherent laziness puts people into the "not capable" bucket). Another bucket is people for whom alternative learning environments might have brought them to understanding and a passing grade. Another bucket is people who just lacked the preliminary background and with a couple years of effort could be made to pass the class as it exists. And finally, another bucket is people who are genuinely incapable, regardless of environment, of understanding the concepts.

This shouldn't be surprising. I have tried to deeply understand quantum mechanics, and while I can parrot some of the most well-known and more simple concepts, I truly believe that I lack the capability of grasping the very core, deep insights in an intuitive way. I might pass undergraduate level classes in the topic, but I am fairly certain I couldn't achieve a PhD. I'm not the dumbest bulb in the shed, but I can see that there are people much, much brighter than I, and it is obvious that their ability to understand more advanced and deep concepts is greater than mine; This leads to the observation that of the set of understandable knowledge in the universe, some of it is available to some people but not available to me, no matter how hard I try. (I take solace in Feynman's quote, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.")

Then look at every human capability and its distribution across the universe of humans, and it's pretty clear that we all can't do everything, every one person has some cutoff beyond which they aren't capable of understanding in any given topic. For some people (and hey, maybe it's a really small slice of the population), that cutoff is somewhere before Calc II.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#104

Post by beej71 »

syops wrote: post #87
beej71 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's some food for thought on "further study": * What percentage of your students hate math? * How do you differentiate between someone who doesn't get it because it's beyond their mental skill level versus someone who doesn't get it because they'd rather be doing literally anything else? * When you say "mentally disabled", what exactly does that mean in the context of a spectrum of ability levels across the specie…

Oh, I’ve thought a great about these things. None of your questions are new to me or are ones I’ve not considered. I did not come to my conclusion quickly. Here are some more thoughts to ponder: Children are easier to brain wash than adults and teaching basic math involves a great deal of brain washing. To what extent is it the case that a person with no exposure to algebraic concepts growing up is at a disadvantage…

Would you mind sharing your conclusions?

Though I don't know of any studies about algebra in particular, kids show greater neuroplasticity in general than adults. So learning anything as an adult tends to be more difficult.

But I live with an American who reasonably fluent in Norwegian after 2 years of study in their 30s. It's certainly not impossible.

I have no doubt that math, like virtually everything, is more difficult for adults to pick up from scratch.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#105

Post by TulliusCicero »

staysafeanon wrote: post #95
TulliusCicero wrote: post #17

The left often accuses the right of being anti-science -- e.g. on climate change, and now vaccines -- with good reason. But it's true that the left has its own troubles with being opposed to science, and genetic effects on behavior is one example. Being egalitarian-minded, many progressives are inherently hostile to the idea that our personalities and behaviors may be hardwired on some level...except that they don't…

>But it's true that the left has its own troubles with being opposed to science, and genetic effects on behavior is one example. That's probably the only example that I can think of. Do you have any more? The right has tons of examples: evolution, climate change, vaccines, etc. Does the left have any except genetics?

Nuclear power and GMO's. And some particularly extreme social justice elements have decided that "objectivity" or "rationality" are part of white supremacy, or at least part of "white culture".

Oh, I guess there's sex differences in personality/behavior/preferences, though arguably that's the same thing as genetic causes of personality.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#106

Post by josephcsible »

staysafeanon wrote: post #95
TulliusCicero wrote: post #17

The left often accuses the right of being anti-science -- e.g. on climate change, and now vaccines -- with good reason. But it's true that the left has its own troubles with being opposed to science, and genetic effects on behavior is one example. Being egalitarian-minded, many progressives are inherently hostile to the idea that our personalities and behaviors may be hardwired on some level...except that they don't…

>But it's true that the left has its own troubles with being opposed to science, and genetic effects on behavior is one example. That's probably the only example that I can think of. Do you have any more? The right has tons of examples: evolution, climate change, vaccines, etc. Does the left have any except genetics?

Before the COVID vaccine was a thing, weren't anti-vaxxers almost exclusively the left?

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#107

Post by staysafeanon »

josephcsible wrote: post #106
staysafeanon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But it's true that the left has its own troubles with being opposed to science, and genetic effects on behavior is one example. That's probably the only example that I can think of. Do you have any more? The right has tons of examples: evolution, climate change, vaccines, etc. Does the left have any except genetics?

Before the COVID vaccine was a thing, weren't anti-vaxxers almost exclusively the left?

I don't believe so... I thought it was somewhat evenly split.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#108

Post by staysafeanon »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #105
staysafeanon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But it's true that the left has its own troubles with being opposed to science, and genetic effects on behavior is one example. That's probably the only example that I can think of. Do you have any more? The right has tons of examples: evolution, climate change, vaccines, etc. Does the left have any except genetics?

Nuclear power and GMO's. And some particularly extreme social justice elements have decided that "objectivity" or "rationality" are part of white supremacy, or at least part of "white culture". Oh, I guess there's sex differences in personality/behavior/preferences, though arguably that's the same thing as genetic causes of personality.

I appreciate the reply. I was not trolling in my OP, I was seriously curious since I couldn't recall any.

Indeed nuclear power seems like an odd one to be opposed to. I think the idea is because we should be going forward with solar and wind?

The social commentary is a not what I had in mind because I don't consider it a hard science like virology, biology, etc.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#109

Post by beej71 »

sjwalter wrote: post #103
beej71 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if someone bombs your class, you're certain they're just mentally deficient? And if you're not certain, how can you tell?

I'm a farmer, not a teacher, so I can't answer this question as asked. But I would speculate that of the set of people who bombed the class, they could fall into a number of buckets. E.g., one bucket is people who were mentally capable of learning the concepts, but were to lazy to put in the effort (then we can quibble about whether inherent laziness puts people into the "not capable" bucket). Another bucket is peopl…

I think we're getting closer to the actual situation with this description. There are a lot of buckets of people who don't do well in a particular class.

And we both admittedly don't know the size of the bucket of people who cannot, given a lifetime of 80 years continuous study and tutoring, understand a topic.

But in my teaching experience, it's dwarfed by the group of people who doesn't care about the topic and bombs because they don't put in the effort.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#110

Post by TulliusCicero »

staysafeanon wrote: post #108
TulliusCicero wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power and GMO's. And some particularly extreme social justice elements have decided that "objectivity" or "rationality" are part of white supremacy, or at least part of "white culture". Oh, I guess there's sex differences in personality/behavior/preferences, though arguably that's the same thing as genetic causes of personality.

I appreciate the reply. I was not trolling in my OP, I was seriously curious since I couldn't recall any. Indeed nuclear power seems like an odd one to be opposed to. I think the idea is because we should be going forward with solar and wind? The social commentary is a not what I had in mind because I don't consider it a hard science like virology, biology, etc.

You don't consider objectivity to be part of the hard sciences? Because that's what some on the left are opposed to. That, or the scientific method more specifically. Granted, it's a fringe opinion for sure.
Post reply on HN