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

631–640 of 756 posts

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#631

Post by [deleted] »

raxxorrax wrote: post #526
someguy321 wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If outcomes between groups are different, investigation into underlying causes of differences in group outcomes is often useful- bigotry need not be a motivation.

What I see is that if a difference is indeed found, there can only be two reasons for it: Racism or sexism. Computer science or video games are an example. The demographics allegedly show very prevalent sexism here that is allegedly responsible for said difference. The self-reflection about how other fields have similar one-sided demographics with the opposite sex isn't interesting on the other hand. On the contrary,…

[deleted]

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#632

Post by rafaelero »

20jdjs00dlll wrote: post #598
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…

So I know a lot of people mentioned in this New Yorker piece. Not well but I consider them colleagues. I have a lot to say about it on several levels. On the one hand, I've had to deal firsthand with the phenomenon Paige-Harden is talking about, in hiring discussions and faculty meetings. It's infuriating and bizarre to see the level of denial that arises among people who ostensibly are extremely intelligent and well…

>This is alluded to in the article with polygenic risk scores, but those I suspect will face a similar crisis of replicability; although they predict outcomes, it's relatively weak when you get to behavior, and much weaker still upon replication.

Why would you say that? I think you implied you work in this field, so maybe you do know better than me. But from my perspective, you are incorrect. Not only a lot of SNP's are replicating, but we also have the definitive method to test causality, which is applying PGS intrafamily.

> The reason why I'm posting in response to your comment is that underlying all of this I think is a fundamental, often implied concern about BG research: that it is not oriented toward intervention, change, or improvement.

Ok, now I am definetely sure you don't work in the field. Wtf? Of course it is immensely valuable to know that cluster X of genes influences condition Y. Nowadays, drug discovery is a pretty messy process without any direction except trial and error. If we can previously know which genes are first implied in this condition, then we can reason what they are probably doing (using previous knowledge of them) and from there work in a possible solution.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#633

Post by s1artibartfast »

lamontcg wrote: post #612
Veen wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Yeah, that's where I'm trying to go with this argument. Them: You just need to believe that genetics matters! Me: Okay, fine I do. Them: Well, then you must agree with Me: Nope, I still want to tax billionaires out of existence and use that to support your "stupid poors" and your ideal of a ruling class and an underclass with unlimited market exploitation created by birthright of genetics is wrong (again, for the sak…

I think this just us back to the basic questions society has considered for hundreds of years.

How to balance of equality of outcomes vs equal treatment.

How to enable individuals to develop their productive ability.

What quality of life we want to provide with charity to those with low economic productivity.

What tax policies achieve these goals and favors the kind economic growth that raises all boats.

In my opinion, I think all of the discussions about economic fairness and what people 'deserve' is just a side freakshow distracting from these real questions.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#634

Post by Jensson »

yadaeno wrote: post #511
1980phipsi wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ matters less than people think at some things, like chess. However, it does matter for other things, like mathematical analysis. Moreover, there is a correlation between IQ or proxies of IQ (like test scores) and income. While it isn't a super-strong relationship, there are few other variables that have as strong an impact.

Have you studied chess at an advanced level (1500+ elo)? Your assertion makes me seriously doubt that you have. And like I said, it's pretty hard to deny IQ is a proxy for learning rate (which is extremely beneficial practically). But it is not the deciding factor in human potential. There are much more impactful and practically easy improve environmental factors like culture, school system, diet, parenting that are…

Have you studied mathematics at an advanced level (ie Principles of mathematical analysis by Rudin)? Your assertion makes me seriously doubt that you have. Learning chess and mathematics is nothing alike. People who do well on math also do well on IQ, that not being true for Chess would mean that Chess is different from most other topics.

So for example, if you want to train someone to be a human calculator, really fast at crunching numbers, then you don't need intelligent people. That is what chess is like. But if you want people to build and understand huge complex systems all carefully interconnected like Math then you need intelligent people.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#635

Post by rejectedandsad »

threatofrain wrote: post #618
rejectedandsad wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do wonder what’s gained by this. There are plenty of physics professors (perhaps even most) that didn’t do calculus until college or at least senior year of high school, what’s the advantage?

I'm not sure it's easy to discuss the high school transcripts of people with university posts. How did you get in touch with this information? The gains become clear depending on the degree to which you know what you want, and especially if you're thinking about graduate programs. 1. Calculus in some sense is somewhat disorganized, and it sucks that it's a gateway to more math in the US. By finishing Calculus early y…

> I'm not sure it's easy to discuss the high school transcripts of people with university posts. How did you get in touch with this information?

Because 95% of the time high school work doesn't transfer to the college level even if you do semesters at De Anza. You're back to scratch unless you go to flagship in-state, and even then you can only transfer up to a certain amount (at my undergrad it was up to Calc 2 - several people I know took Calc 3 in the same institution in high school but had to take it again).

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#636

Post by everdrive »

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…

>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].

This may be true, and a perfectly fair point ... but it does not actually prove the argument wrong, it simply points out that groups are susceptible to motivated reasoning. ie, there are some measurable IQ differences among groups which may be related to genetics, and this point is not invalidated because different people supporting it or criticizing it are hypocrites.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#637

Post by someguy321 »

raxxorrax wrote: post #526
someguy321 wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If outcomes between groups are different, investigation into underlying causes of differences in group outcomes is often useful- bigotry need not be a motivation.

What I see is that if a difference is indeed found, there can only be two reasons for it: Racism or sexism. Computer science or video games are an example. The demographics allegedly show very prevalent sexism here that is allegedly responsible for said difference. The self-reflection about how other fields have similar one-sided demographics with the opposite sex isn't interesting on the other hand. On the contrary,…

>What I see is that if a difference is indeed found, there can only be two reasons for it: Racism or sexism.

This seems absurd to me. As an example, I figure that the reason that there are more male construction workers than female construction workers is not sexism- it's that men largely have more physical strength and a greater inclination or preference for highly physical and dangerous work than women.

Would you call this sexism? Why should it be the default assumption that men and women have equal preferences to self-select jobs exact equal proportion for each and every profession?

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#638

Post by x86_64Ubuntu »

oliwarner wrote: post #561

Matter to whom? If we're talking about personal decision making, dig in, help me improve myself, warn me what to look out for... But too many of these conversations are actually masking conversations about trying to charge more or outright deny opportunities to people who are deemed to have inferior genes.

And let's be honest, it's not about "genes" it's more about right-wingers looking for a scientific reason to deny equal protection to groups they deem inferior.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#639

Post by sitkack »

littlestymaar wrote: post #528
concordDance wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any non video critiques avilable? Videos are much harder to analyze, assess and think about. As far as I know the fundamental points of the bell curve (of which only a small bit relates to race) are nigh-universally acknowledged by people in the relevant fields to be true.

> Any non video critiques avilable? Videos are much harder to analyze, assess and think about. Unfortunately no. I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. > As far as I know the fundamental points of the bell curve (of which only a small bit relates to race) are nigh-universally acknowledged by people in the relevant fields to be true. AFAIK this is really not the case. I've seen a survey (which I can find now :/) of…

The Bell Curve is unrescuable from a scientific perspective, it should be thrown away.

If it is definitional to your worldview, then replace it with a scientifically sound one.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#640

Post by bart_spoon »

TFYS wrote: post #622
bart_spoon wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, no such democratic socialist government ever materializes. Because all nations must allocate capital efficiently to function and resist outside hostile forces. The capitalist option is to allow people to own private property, and trust that the supply and demand of a marketplace and individuals looking out for their personal best interest will align to allocate that capital efficiently. The tradeoff is that…

You assume representative democracy is the only way to make democratic decisions. With our current technology we could make such decisions using direct democracy. Imagine a collectively owned bank with a democratic decision-making process. You'd propose your idea for a Netflix competitor, and after a period of public debate the bank invests in the ideas that people decided are worth investing in. Combine direct democ…

> Imagine a collectively owned bank with a democratic decision-making process. You'd propose your idea for a Netflix competitor, and after a period of public debate the bank invests in the ideas that people decided are worth investing in.

There is no difference between what you write here and my example. Whether you call it a "collectively owned bank with a democratic decision-making process" or simply "ruling government, it's still a government body deciding what will and won't receive funding, and if you disagree with it there is no opt out or alternative route to investing in competitors, resulting in state-owned media.

> With our current technology we could make such decisions using direct democracy.

Direct democracy is impossible given the scale of the number of decisions required. We can't even get 50% of the populace to show up for elections once every 4 years. Every single issue the constituency might vote on in a direct democracy wouldn't involve 99.9% of the actual populace's input. What proportion of the population have the time and will power to follow and investigate even a fraction of the bills being voted on by their national representatives? Their state representatives? Their local government? Their school boards? Their HOA? All of that represents a pittance of the amount of decision making that would be required for the government to assume the decision making that goes into managing what currently happens in the free market. Do we really expect direct democracy to work there?

That's the hubris of socialism. It assumes that the aggregate direction required to manage modern day nation-states is something that can be handled in a centralized way. Which is how the largest famines in human history have been self-imposed through communist regimes trying and failing to do so. Capitalism, for all its many faults, is decentralized enough to offer more resiliency.

Post reply on HN