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

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#451

Post by croon » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 12:03 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #441

Shame on you, this is a "no true scotsman" argument. "I don't want to argue X but proceeds to argue X " is a common yet despicable rhetoric trick.

Not OP, but no it's not.

For example; are the Nordics or most of Europe socialist?

If they are and are functioning it means it can work. If they are not, maybe people have differing opinions of what socialism entails.

What usually is a "no true scotsman" argument is when someone only calls something socialist when it's not working, because if an implementation is working that would deflate the argument. See a few posts above.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#452

Post by jmull » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 12:03 PM UTC

ComodoHacker wrote: post #384

ggggtez wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a clear misunderstanding of practically everything about progressivism. Progressivism is an evolution of liberalism which acknowledges that liberalism had failed to bring the equality it promised. Having scientific proof of differences does nothing. It's not the starting stats that progressives see as the thing that needs to be equalized, but the opportunities. Maybe the outcomes. It depends.

Did liberalism ever promise the equality of outcomes, besides the equality of opportunities?

I’m not sure what anyone was promised, but just from a basic logical perspective, if opportunities are really equal then, over time, outcomes will equalize as well.

I’m not a progressive, but if over decades of pursuing liberal policies outcomes are not equalizing, it seems to make sense to try to figure out why and find something better to try.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#453

Post by syops » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 12:03 PM UTC

saalweachter wrote: post #342

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…

> ...but as a former math educator my experience also indicates some people are genetically limited in mathematics. You sequenced the genomes of your students and correlated their performance against their genes?

Well, I’m certain cockroaches can’t learn calculus. Neither can apes or monkeys. Some humans can. Therefore I think that brain composition has something to do with learning calculus. There is variation in said brain composition amongst humans. It seems reasonable to think that the set of all people is not a subset of all things that can learn calculus.

I haven’t performed any genetics tests but brain composition is partly determined by genetics so genetics might play role, right?

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#454

Post by inglor_cz » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 12:06 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #365

Tenoke wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, that's a good point generally but doesn't seem at all the problem the article is addressing. Skimming it, it's about progressives denying group differences at all and calling those who research them 'equivalent to Holocaust Deniers'. From following genetics research and researchers, I've seen plenty of that, and I don't see the relevance of your point here.

The research isn't specifically about group differences, or differences between populations anyway. That issue inevitably gets all the attention, but it's just one dimension. The vast majority of genetic differences between any two individuals have nothing to do with whatever arbitrary groups society categorises them with, and most genetic differences that do correlate with anything like race are basically cosmetic.…

"most genetic differences that do correlate with anything like race are basically cosmetic."

But those that aren't cosmetic can matter a lot. For a noncontroversial example, sickle cell anemia. It absolutely makes sense to screen people of West African descent for sickle cell anemia.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#455

Post by Ma8ee » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 12:08 PM UTC

xibalba wrote: post #417

If Chomsky’s solutions are bunk, what is the value of his argument? See also: the last 250 years of economic history.

And 250 years of economic history shows that unhindered capitalism is a disaster. The only reason capitalism appears so so successful is because it has been balanced with more progressive policies.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#456

Post by syops » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 12:09 PM UTC

virgilp wrote: post #394

bawolff wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the original claim was merely that a certain percentage of the population are not going to learn algebra - it would be uncontroversial and i would agree with it. After all, we all know that some people fail classes. If the claim was merely that math comes easier to some than others - again it would be an uncontroversial claim and i would agree with it. However, my reading of the original comment was that a good po…

> So i guess we're in agreement. Not exactly. I read the original claim that they are "incapable to learn algebra even in very good/way above average (but still realistic) circumstances".

This is what i meant.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#457

Post by inglor_cz » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 12:09 PM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #444

esyir wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The catch here would be thinking in distributions, and from that separating individuals from said distributions. A current topic would be representation within a given domain. Particularly since in most representation cases (high paying jobs, celebrities, top universities, etc), we're already looking at the tails of the distribution. There, small shifts can heavily affect the quantity of users in the right tail, espe…

But it's a bad idea to compare the world's fastest runners with people getting high paying jobs - that's the main point of the GP's comment. Even for something as clearly and uncontroversially genetically influenced as running ability, the group differences only really matter for the top 100 people out of 7 billion. If you look at top 100k runners, the group differences are almost entirely gone. Even more, the top 10…

Socially, who makes it to the top hundred matters a lot. We can know only so many people by name: Nobel awardees, composers like Bach and Dvořák.

Our own brain capacity for knowledge makes us concentrate on the top 100s. While the 100k top scientists do matter scientifically, they do not matter culturally.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#458

Post by syops » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 12:10 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #448

syops wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know nothing about my teaching or what I do for my students. Did I say a good fraction of the students can’t learn algebra? I never said or implied anything of the sort. All I said is that some people can’t learn it. I gave an extreme example of such a person. I didn’t say anything regarding how large the set of people who can’t learn algebra is other than that this set is larger than the set of intellectually di…

> You know nothing about my teaching or what I do for my students. I actually do because I read all of your comments in this thread.

You don’t because I’ve never said anything about my teaching. Your conclusions are not supported by the available evidence.

You’ve obviously not taught much in the classroom. Why is it so obvious? Consider the possibility that your thinking on this issue is clouded by your past.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#459

Post by FiberBundle » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 12:10 PM UTC

croon wrote: post #451

tomp wrote: post #441

Shame on you, this is a "no true scotsman" argument. "I don't want to argue X but proceeds to argue X " is a common yet despicable rhetoric trick.

Not OP, but no it's not. For example; are the Nordics or most of Europe socialist? If they are and are functioning it means it can work. If they are not, maybe people have differing opinions of what socialism entails. What usually is a "no true scotsman" argument is when someone only calls something socialist when it's not working, because if an implementation is working that would deflate the argument. See a few pos…

> are the Nordics or most of Europe socialist?

Absolutely not. They are primarily market based with a relatively large welfare state. How is that even a question?

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#460

Post by inglor_cz » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 12:12 PM UTC

auganov wrote: post #341

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.

> from obese tendency Which should make you rather skeptical of inferring just how innate IQ really is (assuming it's a valid concept). The heritability correlations for obesity are only slightly weaker than IQ. Yet we know for a fact the logical complexity of losing weight is simple (doesn't mean it's easy). Anyone can and people do lose weight, even if statistically it may be rather unlikely. It's completely plausi…

Every phenomenon has both sides. While many people grew obese, there are still significant outliers among us who chug beer, consume current obesogenic diet and stay slim.

Is it genetics? Is it gut microbiota? (E.g. genetics of other species?)