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

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#571

Post by ggggtez » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 3:31 PM UTC

concordDance wrote: post #503

jmull wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think liberalism cares about liberty not equality. Pure equality is not possible while people have parents.

The constitution of the US (a liberal system) contains this phrase you might be familiar with. "All men are created equal". Equality is a central tenet of liberalism.

The argument that your parents make you not equal is exactly what liberalism is trying to reject. Someone should not be treated differently based on their heritage (monarchies anyone?).

In fact, since you believe you can't be equal due to parentage, you probably agree with some of what progressives have to say. The current system isn't equal.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#572

Post by ModernMech » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 3:33 PM UTC

Veen wrote: post #297

lamontcg wrote: post #115

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 tw…

> But then people use that to argue that the people at the top deserve everything they have. Doesn't genetic endowment imply the exact opposite. If the "people at the top" got there because of a factor over which they had no influence—what was once called a gift—how can they deserve their place? You might argue that they are the people who should be at the top because of their abilities, but that has nothing to do wi…

> If the "people at the top" got there because of a factor over which they had no influence—what was once called a gift—how can they deserve their place?

The next step in the line of reasoning is that their genetics have divine provenance. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Wealth_Gospel

Essentially: I'm rich because I'm smart, and I'm smart because God wanted me to be, therefore God wants me to be rich. Conversely God wants poor people to be poor. If He didn't want that, then He would have made them smarter.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#573

Post by pedrosorio » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 3:35 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #301

pedrosorio wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kenyans, Ethiopians and (white) Americans are not genetically homogenous. Even two siblings can be quite different genetically. The great American distance runners have genetic talent - they didn’t just train harder than their middle school mates who were out of breath while the champions ran faster and longer than anyone else weeks after beginning training.

> have genetic talent - they didn’t just train harder than their middle school mates who were out of breath Who knows if it was only due to genes? And more importantly, there isn't a gene that's about running faster. (sure, some genes are helpful and might get you in front - not discounting the work the athlete goes through) Getting to the podium is a mix of several characteristics: Some people might be more prone to…

> Who knows if it was only due to genes? And more importantly, there isn't a gene that's about running faster

Do you interpret “genetic talent” as “there is a single gene that explains everything about this skill”? I don’t.

Would you say it’s unreasonable to say cheetahs are faster than turtles due to genetics unless you can pinpoint the one gene that causes the running speed difference?

> Some people might be more prone to muscle recovery/injury resistance. Another one has a better muscle fiber mix. Another one has different muscle attachment positions. And another one feels less pain.

All genetic, so you’re agreeing with me then?

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#574

Post by ethbr0 » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 3:42 PM UTC

notafraudster wrote: post #420

ethbr0 wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Given we have a fixed amount of effort to apply to scrutinizing superficially reasonable but deeply poor arguments, we should focus on those that -- if false -- have the most deleterious effect on utility, broadly defined. If social equity is a component of the utility function, and I think for many it is, then power-preserving arguments would be such a target. This could really be articulated in any way you choose,…

> If social equity is a component of the utility function, and I think for many it is, then power-preserving arguments would be such a target.

This is conflating two wildly different things.

Unless you're assuming that power is inherently unequal?

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#575

Post by zepto » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 3:43 PM UTC

cloudfifty wrote: post #557

zepto wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I’ll give you that distinction. Socialism inevitably is authoritarian.

That's luckily easy for anyone to discover is incorrect by a half-arsed google search and a somewhat honest attitude to learning.

A Google search will tell you what people would like socialism to be.

Empirical examples tell you what it is. You’ve already agreed with this.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#576

Post by bart_spoon » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 3:46 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #386

inter_netuser wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gene for running faster: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2017.0108... Amusingly, it is literally what you are writing about. Certain variants of that gene confer exactly a) better recovery b) sports injury resistance c) fast twitch fiber synthesis. Simply because we have not pinpointed something with laser precision, propagated the knowledge to every human with internet access and papered it up wit…

Sure, that's one gene that helps. Saying that you only need that to get to a podium would be a stretch. And there might be other genes. Someone missing this beneficial change might have other helpful mutations. As even the article points > In addition, whilst Kenyan and Ethiopian endurance runners are highly successful (Wilber and Pitsiladis, 2012), the frequency of the XX genotype within this group is very low at 8%…

> Or are you saying that Track programs should genetically test for this gene and drop whoever doesn't have it?

They don't have to. There is almost certainly a lot of self-selection going on. Anecdotally, I got one of those genetic kit tests done 10 years ago, and it included results on a "fast-twitch vs slow twitch muscle gene". I, who was a sprinter in high school who struggles immensely with long distance running, unsurprisingly have the gene for fast-twitch muscles. My wife, who has never participated in any kind of sport involving sprinting at any level but competes in long-distance races, unsurprisingly has the slow-twitch gene. Neither of us had any of these genetic tests available when we got involved in these activities. We just learned over time what we were naturally good at and what we struggled with. Does it mean that I can never run long-distance at the level my wife does, or that she could never have competed in sprinting? Maybe, but not necessarily. However if possible, it would take far, far more effort than sticking with the things we are good at.

Between people gravitating to what comes naturally, and other filters (like making or being cut from a track or XC team), a lot of the genetic filtering already occurs without actual testing.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#577

Post by xyzzyz » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 3:48 PM UTC

cloudfifty wrote: post #560

bart_spoon wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not an objective fact in the sense that there is nothing rigid in political and economic science like we have in mathematics or physics, but yes, every instance of attempts at building socialist governments have been tied at the waist to authoritarianism. In all cases, they have resulted in collapse (USSR), limped along under authoritarian rule (Cuba, Venezuela, Madagascar), or have thrived after jettisoning actu…

> every instance of attempts at building socialist governments have been tied at the waist to authoritarianism Hence the fierce insistence from large parts of the socialist movement throughout history that it must be radically democratic - otherwise oppression, rather than liberation will be the result.

Which is why I recommended Hayek, as he convincingly argues that authoritarian oppression is non severable component of socialist economic system. He argues that the design and incentives inevitably lead to the same, authoritarian outcome. Experience of 20th century has repeatedly validated his predictions.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#578

Post by bjourne » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 3:54 PM UTC

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #305

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.

I'll tell you what genes are responsible for intelligence if you can tell me which machine code instructions are responsible for Mario. ;-) ( I might need to expand on that a little: I predict that "the genes responsible for intelligence" are not a thing. I think that genes tend to work together to make a living organism similar to how machine code instructions work together to make a program run. So for example: I'm…

The analogy doesn't work as we have indeed identified genes for many biological traits. For example, whether someone is vulnerable to certain diseases. So if iq is a biological trait, like eye color or height, it is odd that we haven't yet found any iq genes.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#579

Post by goatlover » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 3:55 PM UTC

Ma8ee wrote: post #496

Lord_Baltimore wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Unhindered capitalism" "it has been balanced with more progressive policies." That doesn't sound like unhindered capitalism.

Times when capitalism has been unhindered have led to market crashes, galloping inequality and depressions. Times when capitalism has been balanced with progressive policies have led to stability and growth, not only for the already rich.

So that sounds like a mixed economy is best where capitalism provides the growth and progressive policies counter balance the bad tendencies.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#580

Post by Tenoke » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 3:58 PM UTC

throwaway972021 wrote: post #485

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.

> progressives denying group differences at all In my experience, it depends on the group. It seems conservatives are more likely to defend the idea of IQ differences among racial groups, but also more likely to reject the studies showing that liberals tend to have higher IQ's than conservatives[1]. Fundamentally, though, I'm not sure what the use of highlighting group differences is. I tend to skeptical of such stud…

Comparing a single study to a whole subfield is just odd.

Also again, no. You generally don't make individual judgements based on group differences. You can make population-level decisions based on them or allocate funds more effectively or reach a deeper understanding on group differences with such research so socially outlawing it is counter-productive even if you personally won't use the results in your day to day life.