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

111–120 of 756 posts

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#111

Post by staysafeanon »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #110
staysafeanon wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No no, as in: gender/women's/political studies where that kinds of stuff comes out of isn't a hard science, so I'm not adding that in as "anti-science".

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#112

Post by syops »

beej71 wrote: post #104
syops wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dif…

What is theorized to be impossible is learning a language as an adult if you did not learn a language as a child. That is, if at age 20 you know 0 languages then you’ll never be able really learn a language. For obvious reasons experiments in this regard are few.

My conclusion is that some people simply can’t learn algebra. Be it genetic, environmental, lack of intellectual fortitude, lack of “intelligence”, or any combination thereof it is simply the case that some people can’t learn algebra.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#113

Post by DangitBobby »

TameAntelope wrote: post #94
threatofrain wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously surprised that zero experience translates to a hit on credibility?

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…

Ad hominem occurs when you use someone's reputation in another area to discredit someone on an unrelated matter. For example, you're the worst golfer on the planet so I say you don't know how to cook. Golf expertise has no bearing on your cooking skills. But if you consistently burned toast or you mainly use your oven to heat up frozen pizza, I'm going to take anything you say about baking a cake with a giant grain of salt.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#114

Post by ctrlp »

beej71 wrote: post #82
ctrlp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want everyone to pass, lower the standards. The end result will be that certificates from schools without high standards will be worth less in the eyes of employers (while still costing the same to the student). As they progress through such a system, some students will be placed in advance of their abilities and fail out at a higher rate than they might otherwise when they reach an institution with non-negoti…

Why not improve at teaching the material instead of lowering the standards?

Why, indeed. Maybe our standards for teachers are too lenient. In any case, it is possible that there is no quality of teaching that will change a student's natural aptitude. It's a disservice to huge swaths of the population to funnel them, ill-prepared, into colleges. Maybe a network of high-quality trade schools would be a better fit for some.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#115

Post by lamontcg »

I don't particularly have a problem accepting that intelligence could be genetic.

But then people use that to argue that the people at the top deserve everything they have.

The exact same argument was made back when we had slavery.

Now its just used to justify wage slavery and gross wealth inequality and policies which punish the poor.

(It also is grossly oversimplified and discounts reversion to the mean and that two dumb parents can absolutely have a smart kid -- along with the fact that a smart kid born in poverty is going have a much more difficult time getting their net worth up into tends of millions than someone who is just literally born with that much -- plus neglects the effects of e.g. malnutrition on childhood development)

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#117

Post by TulliusCicero »

staysafeanon wrote: post #111
TulliusCicero wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No no, as in: gender/women's/political studies where that kinds of stuff comes out of isn't a hard science, so I'm not adding that in as "anti-science".

Why would that matter? It's part of the left, coming out against science. Most conservatives against science aren't themselves researchers in hard science fields.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#118

Post by TameAntelope »

DangitBobby wrote: post #113
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…

Ad hominem occurs when you use someone's reputation in another area to discredit someone on an unrelated matter. For example, you're the worst golfer on the planet so I say you don't know how to cook. Golf expertise has no bearing on your cooking skills. But if you consistently burned toast or you mainly use your oven to heat up frozen pizza, I'm going to take anything you say about baking a cake with a giant grain o…

No, ad hominem occurs when you use who a person is rather than their argument to claim they are incorrect. Here's a definition from Google:

> (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Nothing about a reputation or using it to discredit them.

For example, I'm not a calculus teacher, therefore I couldn't possibly form a valid argument about how teaching works. That would be an ad hominem, because it focuses on who I am (not a teacher), rather than what I've said (the teacher I was replying to hasn't eliminated any variables at all before drawing their conclusion). (It's also nonsensical, considering how many other things people teach, and how small a percentage of all teachers calculus teaching ends up being, and how unrelated-to-the-science-of-education calculus is).

It's actually funny, because the example you've given isn't an ad hominem, since you have evidence to support the idea that I can't cook (the burnt toast). You're equating an absence of information about me with specific data, which is different.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#119

Post by syops »

TameAntelope wrote: post #118
DangitBobby wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad hominem occurs when you use someone's reputation in another area to discredit someone on an unrelated matter. For example, you're the worst golfer on the planet so I say you don't know how to cook. Golf expertise has no bearing on your cooking skills. But if you consistently burned toast or you mainly use your oven to heat up frozen pizza, I'm going to take anything you say about baking a cake with a giant grain o…

No, ad hominem occurs when you use who a person is rather than their argument to claim they are incorrect. Here's a definition from Google: > (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Nothing about a reputation or using it to discredit them. For example, I'm not a calculus teacher, therefore I couldn't possibly form a valid argument about how teaching works.…

You don’t know what an ad hominem is. You are incorrectly applying the definition. It is not an argumentative fallacy to ask the basis by which a person’s assertions have been formed. You’ve made lots of claims about teaching but clearly you have no experience to back it up and (this is important) you have not provided any citations to back up your assertions.

People have to make judgments with imperfect knowledge. It’s reasonable to discount the unsubstantiated opinions of someone with no experience with the topic at hand.

It should at least be interesting to you that it was obvious from your comments that you don’t have experience teaching mathematics in the classroom. Why was that so obvious to those of us with that experience? The previous question is rhetorical.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#120

Post by TameAntelope »

syops wrote: post #119
TameAntelope wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, ad hominem occurs when you use who a person is rather than their argument to claim they are incorrect. Here's a definition from Google: > (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Nothing about a reputation or using it to discredit them. For example, I'm not a calculus teacher, therefore I couldn't possibly form a valid argument about how teaching works.…

You don’t know what an ad hominem is. You are incorrectly applying the definition. It is not an argumentative fallacy to ask the basis by which a person’s assertions have been formed. You’ve made lots of claims about teaching but clearly you have no experience to back it up and (this is important) you have not provided any citations to back up your assertions. People have to make judgments with imperfect knowledge. I…

I didn't say it was an argumentative fallacy to ask the basis by which a person's assertions have been formed, I said it was a fallacy to say a person's assertions are wrong because of some aspect of themselves, which is what's taken place here by insisting I must be a calculus teacher in order to challenge your assertion that IQ is the primary source of the problems your students have with learning in your classrooms.

What is interesting to me is the fact that you retreated to this ad hominem the moment you were challenged, because it tells me you don't have any real explanation for how you eliminated other possible causes for your students sometimes performing poorly.

You'd prefer to live in a world where your experience has meaning than to live in a world where your experience is not valuable when faced with this question, which is completely human of you, but ultimately not useful in this discussion, due to its anecdotal and un-rigorously collected nature.

I can't stop you from throwing this New Yorker article, and the other works of Dr. Harden, in the face of your colleagues, but I can hopefully dissuade others from making the same logical mistakes you're making. I believe I've succeeded at that, by clearly highlighting the carelessness of what you've said here.

Ultimately, what I find most fascinating is, in real time, you've demonstrated how right Dr. Turkheimer ultimately is and how dangerous this research can be when put in the hands of folks who don't understand its delicacy or even the basic facts surrounding these arguments.

I'm grateful for your engagement with me, it's been helpful to work through this with someone like you, but I'll commit to the thing you tried and failed to do; I'm no longer going to reply to your comments in this thread. You're clearly (and I mean clearly) wrapped up in a need to think of some of your students as too dumb to learn calculus, and there's literally nothing I or anyone else here can say that would convince you otherwise, and at this point I've done my part in preventing others from thinking that your insight is useful or helpful in this conversation.

Have a great rest of your evening!

Post reply on HN