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

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#281

Post by xyzzyz » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 7:47 AM UTC

qqqwerty wrote: post #262

xyzzyz wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

70% is actually on the low side of today’s results. Observed heritability is lower in early childhood (meaning the amount of variance in intelligence among children explained by genes is “only” 20%-50%, “only” in quotes because it’s still large amount, as far as phenotypical traits are concerned), but grows to 80%+ in adulthood, even higher than that if you correct for attenuation (i.e. measurement error, which will…

Robert Plomin is not without controversy: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/there-i...

Well, yes, because he studies intelligence and doesn’t mindlessly repeat socially acceptable nonsense. This necessarily means controversy. You’ll find that most researchers in that field are “controversial” in some way, but it really tells you more about how society views the results, not the people obtaining them.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#282

Post by cdrini » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 7:51 AM UTC

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…

It seems like you're essentially implying the mean value theorem here. Because there exist some people who cannot do algebra (folks with mental disabilities), and there exist some people who can, there likely must be some sort of transition point where someone doesn't have mental disabilities but can't do algebra. In that graph, you're implying that "mental intelligence" is the independent variable(s) and algebraic ability is the dependent variable.

Another assumption is that the function is continuous. That's one I'm not sure about. I don't think there's a continuum between folks with mental disabilities and folks without. I think there's a discontinuity -- or perhaps overlapping spectrums on different dimensions -- but not a continuum. That's why many mental disabilities are the result of very concrete genetic variations. You can't have 80% of a generic variation. You either have it or you don't, which implies some sort of inherent discontinuity.

My guess would be algebraic ability is a normal distribution. But that's not a death sentence. People who might, because of genetics or more likely nurture/circumstance be unlikely to learn a lot in algebra, are not doomed to that fate. It just means it might require a lot more time and hard work for them and their teachers -- to the point where they might not find it feasible, and instead choose to do something else.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#283

Post by tnzm » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 7:52 AM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #247

tnzm wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying "there is no essential difference between genetics and other causative factors" is arbitrarily different from saying "all is one, separateness is an illusion". That is, it differs in connotations and not in the essential content of the statement. Which is exactly what you said, except that you chose to ignore that connotations conduct meaning, when you asked your rhetorical question. This is not e-prime, it is…

It's not arbitrary. "Other causative factors" is boundless.

You now seem to be talking about something else entirely.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#284

Post by concordDance » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 7:53 AM UTC

smhost wrote: post #164

Hermitian909 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the more people can learn algebra than OP implies, but as a former math educator my experience also indicates some people are genetically limited in mathematics. For reference, my specialty was working with very remedial students and only ever had a few students not make progress (~2%) but I do think that small percent was genuinely hopeless and I don't say that lightly. I have a pet theory as to why those st…

HN crowd doesn't think twice about people who try to run DOOM on a stack of pennies, but are ready to give up before trying to get algebra to run on someone with less working memory. It's weird how different the attitude is.

Many orders of magnitude more effort has been spent on the latter to little avail.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#285

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 7:55 AM UTC

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #152

In these comments: people doing apologetics for a vision of the world where everyone is born with equal potential. I am a scientist, I work on these things, and I am here to tell you that: --Intelligence is largely (~70-80% of variance) inherited --Your personality is largely determined by genetics and is pretty much settled in to what it will always be by ~30 --If you don't learn to count right by ~4 you never will…

[deleted]

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#286

Post by luckylion » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 7:55 AM UTC

atoav wrote: post #250

luckylion wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So cool — genetics matter, just like education, nutrition, social situation, security of ones environment etc — but what do we do with this? Not claim that everything is due to a secret cabal of structural racism/sexism/hate on the poor? As long as you have that as your perfect explanation for the state of the world, you won't really make a difference, because you're attacking the wrong issue.

Exactly my point. As useful genetics are in medical applications as dangerous genetics get when non-scientists try to explain their existing world view using it.

No, what I meant was: if you accept that genetics play a large role, you automatically have to decrease the importance of other factors.

I believe it's much more dangerous to be willfully ignorant of science than what political movements might form because of science.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#287

Post by esyir » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 7:56 AM UTC

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #137

cblconfederate wrote: post #131

I tried once to ask reddit's Anthropologists about what cultural artifacts are affected by genetics e.g. how lactose intolerance can affect a local culture. The question was apparently racist and then taken down. What's weird, is that if you believe in equality , you 'd WANT to know the genetic determinants of anything, so you can truly equalize it with genetic engineering.

Anthropology split into science-anthropology and deliberately-rejects-science anthropology a couple decades ago. As I recall, there was a specific meeting of a society that was the cleaving point. For instance, biological anthropologists tend to actually do science, while cultural anthropologists tend to do work that does not rise to that standard. It's too bad that it takes insider knowledge to tell them apart.

I'm reminded of a time back when I was in university where the cultural studies professor vehemently denied the existence of potential genetic differences between two ethnic groups.

I don't remember the context any more, but it hella set the stage for my opinion on that field.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#288

Post by YetAnotherNick » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 7:57 AM UTC

armchairhacker wrote: post #219

Genetics has a huge influence on what someone is predisposed to and what they can achieve. Certain ethnic groups and families, on average, are more likely to have certain traits and less likely to have others. But genetics doesn't matter , in that just because you have "bad" genetics doesn't mean you'll suck, whether it comes to weightlifting, intelligence, temperment, etc. Maybe you won't be in the top 0.0001%, but…

Genes describe lot of things from obese tendency to height to IQ to your looks. If someone has an IQ of 70, there are very likely to live a difficult life. Yes IQ is not intelligence you will say but still there is a limit to everyday functioning if someone's IQ is low. Ask a conventional ugly person(specially female) about their life.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#289

Post by xyzzyz » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 7:59 AM UTC

angelzen wrote: post #226

xyzzyz wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Math notation is very consistent and it’s optimized for convenience. It’s been constantly refined over last centuries. People who complain about notation usually actually have problem with the substance, and the complaints about notation is just a coping mechanism, to deny hurtful reality that one can’t understand something hard, blaming external factors instead. Ask yourself: if notation was genuinely confusing, why…

> Ask yourself: if notation was genuinely confusing, why would mathematicians make themselves suffer needlessly? Sometimes notation elides 'obvious details'. The details are obvious to those that have already gone through the learning curve, which is easier if one is strongly connected to other working mathematicians than for outsiders. Mathematicians barely notice inadequate or unusual notation. Outsiders struggle a…

> Anecdote 1: Sometimes notation is too terse: single letters. Granted, efficient for whiteboard scribbling. Would be really nice to standardize an appendix for notation. E[X] = . Hmmm, what could E be? By the fifth paper, somebody bothers to write 'expected value' in plain English and the mystery in unambiguously clarified. In a voice-based interaction this is a non-issue, not so for those that only have text to deal with. This compounds as a novice has to juggle a set of mysterious symbols with tens of elements.

I really cannot conceive how one can learn what the concept of “expected value” of a “random variable” means, without encountering E[X] notation. This is a technical concept having a technical meaning, and any place that actually defines this meaning will teach you this notation. If you see this notation for the first time in some academic paper, but haven’t ever read any probability textbook, it means that you almost never actually learned the concept, which is my entire point. You might have some intuitive understanding derived purely from the literal meaning of the words “expected value”, but without actually getting technical, this intuitive understanding is mostly superficial, and, as such, not very useful. You won’t be, for example, be able to answer such fundamentally important questions like “is expected value of sum of random variables a sum of expected values of each? Is expected value of product a product of expectations?”. You can’t know answers to these questions without having ever seen E[X] notation, and if you don’t know the answers, your problem is with the actual concept, not notation.

> PS. I agree that the bigger obstacle is the lack of proper big picture 'why do we even bother with these concepts / theorems'. At an extreme, there is (used to be?) a certain style of math books consisting exclusively of a dry litany of 'Definition 1.2.3', 'Theorem 3.2.4', 'Corollary 2.3.1'. Very rigorous and very difficult to ascertain what problems they were trying to solve.

I agree that it very much often is a problem. It’s not a problem of notation, though.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#290

Post by tgv » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 8:00 AM UTC

Tade0 wrote: post #180

tgv wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the number of people that haven't acquired overt communication is so low, it can hardly affect the average.

My point is that if you can produce twins, one of which will be taught how to speak, read and write and the other not and the difference in intelligence between them will be so significant, then the genetic component can't possibly amount for most of intelligence. Yes, it's the nature vs nurture argument all over again, but I think that regarding intelligence it's far from settled.

Well, that's why I wanted to know how intelligence was operationalized. But even in your Gedankenexperiment, there are ways to estimate heritability of intelligence: you'd need 100s similar cases, and, e.g., test them on puzzle solving and learning skills.

Edit: sorry, I asked that question in another thread...