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

401–410 of 756 posts

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#401

Post by dang »

heisenzombie wrote: post #371
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…

What could be more devastating to a line of inquiry than derision and scorn? easy! a collective yawn!

Whatever you mean by this, please don't post unsubstantive comments or flamebait comments to Hacker News.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#402

Post by blast »

dash2 wrote: post #399
blast wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The topic of the article, and therefore of my comment, is progressive takes on the issue. If you aren't a progressive, you don't agree with any of those. That's fine but trivial, it doesn't need pointing out. My point is that within the range of progressive arguments, Chomsky's is definitive because it doesn't involve the intellectual contortions that other progressive positions are increasingly depending on.

You can be a progressive without believing that we can organize society so that value creation is rewarded with nothing but "respect" and "intrinsic satisfaction". That's Chomsky's argument. It's false.

There's more to Chomsky's argument than that, and if you read it closely, he says "redistribution of income would appear to be an equally obvious strategy", which is much closer to a mainstream progressive position.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#403

Post by Toutouxc »

woko wrote: post #294
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…

> People strongly want to believe that intelligence doesn't have a strong genetic component, I think mainly for moral reasons. More so because there is no proof for that. Individuals exhibit different levels of intelligence. Sure, life is unfair. However, individuals do not necessarily inherit intelligence from their parents' genes. Seriously, who could think that you could build a lineage of "gifted persons" solely…

> Seriously, who could think that you could build a lineage of "gifted persons" solely by genetically selecting the parents among the population of "gifted persons"?

Yes, definitely. Ask anyone who breeds animals for a living. You can select for even more abstract traits like "willingness to train", obedience or fearlessness.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#404

Post by SavantIdiot »

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…

Here's a thought I've been tossing around: It's a community college, everyone is supposed to pass. At some point at the bottom of intelligence but with motivation to go to school and try and work and do the assignments, meritocracy literally doesn't matter. Because a diploma is needed even for minimum wage jobs.

Why penalize people who are trying by failing them out of the simplest classes?

Rich idiots fail up, poor idiots end up homeless. No reason to penalize the poor who try when the entire game is arbitrary. This position tends to make certain groups bristle, especially those with a classist sense of "fairness".

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#405

Post by SavantIdiot »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #10
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…

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…

> if you start young enough, and put enough effort in, 99% of everyone can learn

The richest kids at my highschool were also the smartest. There were one or two rich kids who didn't make honor society. There were also only a 5-6 smart kids who were middle/lower-class. Graduating class of ~500 in 1985, about 50 honor society (top 10%).

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#406

Post by cm2187 »

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…

Except that the argument Chomsky makes about the fact that this research would have no purpose in a society that treats people as individuals, ie not a racist society, is certainly valid, but the current progressivism is to do the opposite, ie to define people by their race/sex, and to count the number of people of each race or sex in organisations, and to call racism/sexism if it is not exactly the population distribution.

That’s the argument Murray makes in his latest book, i.e. that differences in distributions is a toxic topic that he has been trying to stay clear of since the Bell Curve, given all the griefs he got for it. But the claims of systematic racism or sexism when you don’t have matching representation everywhere can only be opposed if you get into this ugly discussion.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#407

Post by luckylion »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #311
luckylion wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can believe it's reasonable for a person who can create more value for any reason deserves to be paid more, without believing their "merit" as a person is any different to anyone else. I think progessives care mostly about the economic consequences, not a judgement of someone as a person.

What are the economic consequences? Whether or not it is genetic or due to any other confluence of luck or upbringing or other personal attributes, the end result is the same. Also as I said, there seems to be no issues acknowledging reality of differences in physical attributes that are due to genetics.

The end result between nurture vs nature might be the same, but if it's all nurture, than "we can change it" and no price is too high to get to "the new man".

If it's not, even the best funded policies with the best intentions can only get you so far, and inequality will remain. Not because of a conspiracy that is keeping some down while lifting others up, but because of nature.

I do believe that it would be good on all counts if they would accept genetics, because it would allow for asking much better questions, but I can see why they can't: they're heavily invested in the opposing position and few people are happy to just throw away an investment.

> there seems to be no issues acknowledging reality of differences in physical attributes that are due to genetics.

That's true, but maybe that's because they matter less? I.e. if inequality was primarily defined by height or beauty, they might have a harder time with it. Intelligence & related non-physical things are more important, I believe everybody intuitively accepts that.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#408

Post by ethbr0 »

_fhnu wrote: post #390
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…

Great comment. As you say, denying the research outright is playing a similar tune to those who would abuse the research to support pre-existing notions about everyone's rightful places in society. We should be extremely skeptical of any argument that serves solely to justify the positions those in power, which is a typical endpoint for too many discussions of genetics. Using science to validate the status quo and de…

> We should be extremely skeptical of any argument that serves solely to justify the positions those in power

Are you saying we should be extremely skeptical specifically of arguments that justify the positions of those in power, but not other arguments?

Or are you saying that we should be extremely skeptical of all arguments equally?

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#409

Post by ethbr0 »

baybal2 wrote: post #329
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 p…

"Even if it's true..." isn't a great start to build a policy basis on.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#410

Post by sokoloff »

baybal2 wrote: post #329
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 p…

Where there are differences among humans, I think they should be eligible and encouraged for scientific study. Science doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) care about feelings. I worry that we’ve created a society where “it’s taboo to study that” will blind us all on the path to true understanding.

If we discover facts that we internalize as uncomfortable along the way, it wasn’t the discovery that made those facts exist. Politics can take over after science reveals the facts, but (ideally) not before.

I find it extremely likely that, across all research, that we will find actionable information about what interventions are helpful (and which are not) and blinding ourselves to that in the interest of comfort is undesirable IMO. These could be nutritional, societal, economic, or other and these interventions could serve to lift billions of humans to a better condition.

Post reply on HN