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

321–330 of 756 posts

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#321

Post by fragmede »

raducu wrote: post #264
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…

I do have poor working memory and I did struggle with algebra, especially with copying wrong sign from row to row and things like that. But I did make paper sort of my working memory and when doing algebra I felt that I was just the very resource limited CPU that executed the instructions from paper-memory. Algebra always made me feel like I was doing some mindfull exercise where I had to empty my mind, follow the pa…

Look into ADHD and if you identify with it, you might look into getting a professional's perspective.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#322

Post by throwawaylinux »

ZephyrBlu wrote: post #249
throwawaylinux wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe this idea because few or nobody sees a moral problem in acknowledging there is a strong genetic component to physical attractiveness, or physical features (like height) that give an advantage in "merit" in some paths of life. Nor do people have a problem acknowledging your parents, the country in which you were born, their wealth and fitness as "good parents" for the early years of your life plays a m…

My hypothesis is that people believe intelligence is less genetic and more changeable than physical features purely because it makes sense intuitively. It's hard to change you height, but your mind? Of course you can change that!

I don't think it makes more sense intuitively at all. With the vast range of physical differences we see in people due to genetics, it is not at all intuitive to me to stick to some old dogma that says the brain -- one of the most highly specialized and evolved organ of the animal kingdom -- would not have significant diversity due to genetics.

You can exercise and train your mind of course, as you can with your body. I don't see that as a plausible reason people believe this way. I think they are stuck in the anti-scientific, anti-intellectual dogma for reasons that are not rational.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#323

Post by concordDance »

asdff wrote: post #135
DangitBobby wrote: post #76

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 fort…

I think time well spent is a huge factor to anyone success. Most pro athletes, chess champions, musicians, artists, etc, picked up their hobby at a young age in most cases, and just stuck with it until adulthood and enjoyed the compound effects of having a teacher or coach spend time with you multiple times a week for decades. I think you can put anyone in that environment and they would become elite in whatever you…

The Polgara sisters are evidence for this.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#324

Post by PlasticTank »

Sholmesy wrote: post #307
YetAnotherNick wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree with you, but an IQ of 70 is mentally disabled, so it's not really a good example of "bad" genetics, so much as it is an example of a disability.

That seems like a strange line to draw, surely plenty of disabilities are genetic, implying bad genetics no?

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#325

Post by automatic6131 »

de_keyboard wrote: post #296

I've always thought the "progressive" position was this: 1. Genetics, upbringing and culture all matter 2. Diversity within an ethnic group is extremely large - often similar magnitude to diversity between ethnic groups 3. Therefore, to judge someone on their ethnic average will be inaccurate at best, offensive at worst I think that this position has been misconstrued by pop-right / alt-right figures to create a fals…

If you read the article, you'd see there are "progressives" in positions of power of what science is funded and what isn't, who take the position that genetics don't matter at all, and any research into them is done because it's motivated by rightist hatred of minorities.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#326

Post by courtf »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #145
DangitBobby wrote: post #76

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 fort…

I don't believe this idea because few or nobody sees a moral problem in acknowledging there is a strong genetic component to physical attractiveness, or physical features (like height) that give an advantage in "merit" in some paths of life. Nor do people have a problem acknowledging your parents, the country in which you were born, their wealth and fitness as "good parents" for the early years of your life plays a m…

It only becomes a moral issue if someone who does not happen to stand out along one if the axes that is currently rewarded by society ends up suffering significantly as a result and cannot find ways to succeed in life. Individuals may possess a great many valuable traits that are worth encouraging but simply aren't rewarded as well when it comes time to divvy up the loot. Sort of like being an essential worker during Covid who holds the line against a pandemic to keep society functioning but can't afford to raise a family in the income from that ostensibly important job.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#327

Post by sfblah »

pcrh wrote: post #306
sfblah wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our inability to identify the genes responsible for intelligence doesn’t equate to them not existing. Our understanding of genetics is still extremely nascent.

These studies are highly powered statistically. One conclusion you can definitely draw is that common variation in intelligence is not primarily caused by common genetic variation. Evidently, our genes determine our brain, and are what makes us more intelligent than other animals. But between individual humans, genetic variation contributes to only a few percent of variation.

Or variation in intelligence is genetically controlled in ways we don’t understand yet because our understanding of genetics is nascent.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#328

Post by Sholmesy »

PlasticTank wrote: post #324
Sholmesy wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, but an IQ of 70 is mentally disabled, so it's not really a good example of "bad" genetics, so much as it is an example of a disability.

That seems like a strange line to draw, surely plenty of disabilities are genetic, implying bad genetics no?

Sure, but it's unlikely that you would have an IQ that low, and not have a specific medical disorder that is causing some of your impairment. E.g, Down Syndrome is a chromosomal change, something that can be measured outside of a 'bad genetics'.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#329

Post by baybal2 »

blast wrote: post #293

Chomsky wrote the definitive progressive answer to all this 50 years ago: https://libcom.org/files/chomsky%20-%20iq%20building%20block... Still timely and fresh, especially considering that he was critiquing Herrnstein 20 years before The Bell Curve. Because he's smart and unafraid, either of science or the truth, Chomsky never denies the possibility of a genetic component to IQ, even IQ/race. What he denies are the…

> assumptions which he brilliantly lays bare and then demolishes. He also questions the scientific significance of the research, even if it is true - a phrase he uses a lot.

Absolutely true. Even if it's true, the society should not give ammunition to closet racists with their attempts to stealthily legitimise racism.

Equally so, in the current immigration debacle, we need to call things their own names. What these people mean, but don't say out loud for the fear of instant character assassination by being called out for racism is that they don't want brown people in their countries.

New Yorker bought into this, unfortunately. The author does not want to "help" racial minorities, she wants to label them dumb, an needing compassion, which in reality will lead to even more strong ostracism, and stigmatisation. Nobody have to be "scientifically established to be dumb, and biologically inferior." That's right out of 3rd reich's playbook.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#330

Post by f1refly »

ggggtez wrote: post #241
carabiner wrote: post #136

Sperm banks select highly-educated males (i.e. recruiting at Stanford and Harvard) for sperm donors, so it seems obvious that most people know there is a hereditary component.

Sperm banks select highly educated donors because clients are willing to pay for it. That's all. You are describing capitalism. It's not like these clients are running double blind studies in their wombs.

Yes, and people are willing to pay for it because they believe in the hereditary component, so that believe must be present in the broad population.
Post reply on HN