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

601–610 of 756 posts

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#601

Post by mensetmanusman »

detaro wrote: post #504
mensetmanusman wrote: post #498

Progressives know genetics matter, e.g. there are essentially zero people with downs in Denmark because laws stipulate that you must genetically test the unborn. Those few that make it through this eugenics program are the result of false negatives.

Denmark doesn't have a testing requirement, nor are people only born with downs if a test failed. (It does have very high testing rates and corresponding high rate of subsequent abortions though)

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/the-las...

Universal screening had unintended eugenic consequences. That scientific fact isn’t controversial, what is controversial is to say whether it was good or bad.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#602

Post by detaro »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #601
detaro wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denmark doesn't have a testing requirement, nor are people only born with downs if a test failed. (It does have very high testing rates and corresponding high rate of subsequent abortions though)

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/the-las... Universal screening had unintended eugenic consequences. That scientific fact isn’t controversial, what is controversial is to say whether it was good or bad.

Yes, this confirms what I said?

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#603

Post by sudosysgen »

goatlover wrote: post #579
Ma8ee wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's certainly a respectable opinion, yes, but some believe that these progressive policies are only possible temporarily or in countries that use various legal and kinetic means to maintain an advantage over other countries, etc..., so it's not a settled question that social democracy is the end of history.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#604

Post by clusterfish »

strogonoff wrote: post #155
clusterfish wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know what effect upbringing and cultural values has on math performance? You know because there's research for that. But you can't base any argument on that when research into alternative (or complementary), genetics-based explanations is being stiffled. Or well you can, but that's just society-scale version of googling for statements that you agree with instead of questions that they're supposed to answer…

> society-scale version of googling for statements that you agree with instead of questions that they're supposed to answer Unfortunately, in practice science often turns out to be almost as much of a vehicle for confirming answers one already has in mind, rather than open-ended investigation.

Nothing is ever perfect. That's not a reason to deliberately make it worse than it normally is.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#605

Post by armchairhacker »

pedrosorio wrote: post #240
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…

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.

True, but the talent isn't as obvious. Similarly, you could have two very slow runners give birth to a fast runner, and most of their speed would ultimately come down to getting the right recessive genes.

Almost every trait, even willpower itself, is influenced by genetics. But for most traits it's very difficult if not impossible to reliably determine what genes influence what. Most things aren't determined by one gene, they're influenced by many genes, as well as randomness and your environment.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#606

Post by sudosysgen »

goatlover wrote: post #581
cloudfifty wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The issue with being radically democratic is what to do with the portion of the population who doesn't want socialism? The communist parties thought they had to be authoritarian to force the transition. Or at least that was their justification.

The answer is broadly to get enough people on board so that you can implement radically democratic policies, and then those that oppose them have to infringe on the rights of others violently to get their way, at which point democratic force is justified.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#607

Post by mensetmanusman »

maxerickson wrote: post #563
tomp wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The research definitely is significant - definitely politically, if not scientifically (which I'd argue it is, any research that helps find the truth / predict the future / create a better model of the world is scientifically significant ). We're currently in the middle of several highly emotional political debates, which would easily be resolved by having better/more scientific data, particularly into the correlatio…

What are the debates being resolved? Clear evidence that one group differs from another doesn't provide any useful information for dealing with individuals. Like make up a characteristic where women differ statistically from men, but have the difference be about 1/2 the standard deviation for either group. Lots of women will be closer to the average for men than the average for women, and vice versa, there's no usefu…

“ Clear evidence that one group differs from another doesn't provide any useful information for dealing with individuals “

This isn’t necessarily true.

For example, I know that two-year-olds are far more sensitive to missing naps then eight-year-olds are.

This changes how I structure time and environment around a two year old so that he is the statistically more likely to behave. If I don’t do that, I set them up for individual behavioral failures.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#608

Post by sudosysgen »

xyzzyz wrote: post #577
cloudfifty wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

He also makes the argument that authoritarianism is better than democracy from those very same principles, which as unconvincing as the other.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#610

Post by sudosysgen »

bart_spoon wrote: post #562
croon wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that is what most "socialists" want, meaning your definition of socialism and theirs are probably very different.

Then the issue is with the self-described socialists who don't want socialism. Market based capitalism with wealth distribution and strong social safety nets is not the same thing as a society in which the means of production are communally owned. In fact, the two are in direct opposition of one another, and cannot coexist. I don't disagree with you that most "socialists" want what is essentially a government modeled…

Communal ownership of the means of production is not the definition of socialism. It's merely compatible with the actual definition, which is worker ownership of the means of production.

Some socialists, such as Marx, argue that the logical endpoint of socialism is communal ownership of the means of production at some point in the future when the average worker produces more than their need.

Post reply on HN