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

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#661

Post by heisenzombie » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

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!

Oh dear, sorry I wasn't clear here.

Having read and enjoyed the linked article, I noted that roughly the second half of Chomsky's argument is that the inquiry into race and IQ is fundamentally just boring -- "of quite limited scientific interest". He's saying "sure, you could be right, but who cares?"

This contrasts with the reactions in the article of scorn such as comparing researchers to "Holocaust deniers".

It struck me that of the two; Chomsky's reaction is the more devastating.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#662

Post by throwawaylinux » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #407

throwawaylinux wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

None of this seems plausible t me. Why should physical attributes matter less, and how much less exactly cross this supposed threshold between freely acknowledged and taboo on par with holocaust denial? Clearly the general idea of a "luck" element of advantage is not a problem in the slightest.

And furthermore, looking into extremes, it's also perfectly clear that people are not actually against the idea that there is "unchangeable bad luck". A person with a severe genetic based mental disability (let's say downs syndrome) is clearly extremely unlikely to ever create much value or be paid much money and nobody has a problem with that (again I'm talking purely economically, not their value as a person or the love and happiness they bring to others).

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#663

Post by abecedarius » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #160

kitsune_ wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The elephant in the room is that math has a giant UX problem. The notation is inconsistent and not nearly as logical as it could be.

Math notation is very consistent and it’s optimized for convenience. It’s been constantly refined over last centuries. People who complain about notation usually actually have problem with the substance, and the complaints about notation is just a coping mechanism, to deny hurtful reality that one can’t understand something hard, blaming external factors instead. Ask yourself: if notation was genuinely confusing, why…

pi and tau.

"But that's trivial!" Not to students who aren't future HN readers.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#664

Post by selimthegrim » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 10:01 PM UTC

TMWNN wrote: post #238

temp8964 wrote: post #24

In year 2021, I can tell you, not only genetics is taboo, culture is also taboo now. If an academic dares to say that culture matters in student outcomes (learning, discipline), the person can also get canceled.

>In year 2021, I can tell you, not only genetics is taboo, culture is also taboo now. If an academic dares to say that culture matters in student outcomes (learning, discipline), the person can also get canceled. An example of culture mattering is Britain, where you have three groups from the Indian subcontinent: * Indian Hindus * Indian Sikhs * Indian and Pakistani Muslims Sikhs and Hindus have been very successful;…

It's not a fair comparison because the Sikhs (mostly rich landowning Jats) and Hindus (mostly Brahmins and Baniyas) coming over have a lot of preselection. Muslims are a) more of a simple random sample b) largely from Mangla dam area in Mirpur in PK case c) part of endogamous lower caste groups (less likely)

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#665

Post by commandlinefan » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 10:01 PM UTC

heresie-dabord wrote: post #524

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…

Thank you, /blast/, for sharing this article. The US public discourse has become a thoroughly annoying, exhausting puppetry of shouting, wrestling straw-men. Democracy needs education and clear discourse. Citizens in a democracy are to be treated fairly and as equals before the law. If we cannot even ensure these principles, democracy is in a decrepit state indeed. I wonder what exactly remains as a political commitm…

One wonders is Chomsky himself wouldn't have been cancelled if he were trying to get his start these days.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#666

Post by cloudfifty » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 10:03 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #575

cloudfifty wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Still not true.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#667

Post by sudosysgen » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 10:30 PM UTC

MichaelZuo wrote: post #660

sudosysgen wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism is to be understood as a political economy, not as some abstract economic-only concept that is impossible. A political economy is more capitalist in so far as private ownership of capital faces fewer restrictions and insofar as power is correlated to political ownership. Like all political systems, there are practical limits, but a system in which the power of capital is unrestrained and where very few res…

So by "unhindered capitalism" you mean “partially-hindered capitalism”?

No, I mean unhindered capitalism, capitalism being a real political economy rather than the impossible to define purely economical conception of capitalism. Capitalism is not just an economic system, it has necessary political implication, such as a strong state, an active police force, a class system, etc...

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#668

Post by notafraudster » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 10:33 PM UTC

armchairhacker wrote: post #600

notafraudster wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you look at the top 10 distance runners, they're all from Ethiopia and Kenya. But as you look further down the list into the top 100, you start to see Americans and others. Furthermore, the Americans' times are really close to the Ethiopians and Kenyans. > Because it doesn't say anything about the individual people, who vary much more than the difference in averages. It's not clear it says anything about the dif…

I don't follow your argument well. If a country trains more people to get into distance running, it could definitely skew their average even if their etnicity has bad running genetics. But "doesn't say anything about the individual people" point is that, if you take any one person, no matter what their parents' genetics and environment say (barring extreme examples), they have a chance to become a great distance runn…

I'm not really sure how to re-state any clearer -- just try to follow the math -- but my underlying claim was that "differences in distribution don't tell you anything about individuals" misses the point: yes, of course differences in distributions don't tell you about a given individua. I'm saying observed differences in winners don't provide very strong evidence for _differences in distributions_.

There are several issues: winning reveals the maximum of the distribution, not the mean or sd. An observed pattern of one country winning might reflect different distributional means. It might reflect same means and different standard deviations. It might reflect that the number of observations is larger and thus the probability of an outlier at a certain number of sd above the mean is higher. But beyond that, there are also obvious non-genetic processes that even in a toy distribution can produce a winning country that has lower genetic capability. The entire enterprise of saying "Kenyans win running, so Kenyans are more genetically talented at running" is unsupported.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#669

Post by pasabagi » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 10:56 PM UTC

littlestymaar wrote: post #553

zosima wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Murray was as far as can be determined acting in good faith. The general argument of the Bell Curve, that people from different parts of the world have wildly different distributions on many different attributes, is (or ought to be) completely non-controversial, consistent with almost all scientific evidence and obvious.

> The general argument of the Bell Curve, that people from different parts of the world have wildly different distributions on many different attributes, is (or ought to be) completely non-controversial, consistent with almost all scientific evidence and obvious. “That people from different parts of the world have wildly different distributions on many different attributes” is, as you say, obvious. But just because t…

> “That people from different parts of the world have wildly different distributions on many different attributes” is, as you say, obvious.

Is this obvious? I can't imagine what kinds of attributes you're talking about. I think if they were significant ones (courageousness, curiosity, etc) they would probably have really profound political effects you don't see in reality.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#670

Post by vineyardmike » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 10:56 PM UTC

q1w2 wrote: post #621

vineyardmike wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll lead with this - people should be treated with respect regardless of their race and regardless of their IQ. People should be given equal opportunity to succeed, regardless of any differences. > Widely report that some races don't do as well as others on standardized tests, etc. >Blame racists, or even a whole race that does better as the cause of this. We have widely studied and reported on reasoning for why som…

> People should be given equal opportunity to succeed That is the old dogma. Today progressives insist on giving certain classes of people more opportunity than others. That is why "equality" has been replaced by "equity" in progressive propaganda.

The important point of all this really was the vast american history of racism, not comparing dogma or "propoganda" to what i think about treatment of others. Also, FWIW you're wrong. Progressives are not about giving more opportunity, they're just ensuring that opportunity is received by the people who historically did not have opportunity.

--- --- ---

America has a vast history of racism that is providing people with neither equal nor equitable opportunity.

That is the thing to remember.

America has a vast history of racism that is providing people with neither equal nor equitable opportunity.