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

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#701

Post by pcrh » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 6:25 AM UTC

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #535

sfblah wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or variation in intelligence is genetically controlled in ways we don’t understand yet because our understanding of genetics is nascent.

Yeah, sfblah is right. We will be able to predict based on our knowledge of the little molecules inside you at some point, we just can't do it now. The 70-80% is heritable and not via parenting. It is contingent on an environment that provides things like food and air, and the basic idea is that we control for the environment in some simplistic way via twin studies.

To illustrate, there is almost no difference between the genetics of humans 20,000 years ago compared to today. Yet there is a vast difference in what people understand and how they interact with the world, i.e. there has been an increase in "intelligence" in the past 20k years without there being any alteration to genetics.

It is also shown by the so-called "Flynn effect" [0], which is a substantial rise in measured IQ by over 1 SD in numerous populations during the 20th Century alone. This is comparable to the mean difference in intelligence between individuals, and absolutely cannot be accounted for by changes to genetics.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#702

Post by tsimionescu » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 6:47 AM UTC

marcusverus wrote: post #686

tsimionescu wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Sure, but there is no social contention arising from racial differences in the world's fastest runners. What gets us in trouble are the the racial differences in high-prestige jobs. To really understand the impact of differences in distribut…

> But that reduced dominance of Europeans in total population doesn't make a lot of difference in the 135+ pool. Employers seeking these exceptionally intelligent young adults were choosing from a pool [...]

This is one mistake, and the danger of using IQ as anything more than a trend indicator. Employers don't need 'people with an IQ over ${ARBITRARY_CUTOFF}'. They need 'people who can do X and Y'. And IQs over 100 quickly stop having significant predictive power for mental abilities other than IQ tests. Even exams which focus on pass/fail of an aptitude rather than excellence show little 'racial' variance in general.

The numbers in that paragraph also seem entirely fantastical to me. It basically claims not only that there are IQ differences between the "races", but that they are huge.

Finally, and most importantly, the whole set of observations is meaningless in the way it is used. Even granted that there are such huge differences in IQ between various "racial" groups, the social justice response won't change - we need to focus on eliminating the social and environmental causes at the root of these differences. Murray could claim that the differences are genetic, but I am very curious what is the scientific methodology by which he defines these groups - how much genetic testing did he do determine whether one particular person is 'European', 'African', 'Latin', or 'Asian'? What genes in particular was he looking for that make someone European? (For that matter, are Italians and Spanish people "European" or "Latin"?? Is Eva Longoria, whose family came from Spain to America with a royal land grant 400 years ago "European" or "Latin"?).

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#703

Post by kragen » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 7:07 AM UTC

inter_netuser wrote: post #692

kragen wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's the case at all.

sleep deprivation, or deterioration of performance on U shaped curve?

I don't think I'm suffering from sleep deprivation. Certainly it is true that if you take enough stimulants your performance will worsen! In fact, if you take enough stimulants you'll die and your performance will be zilch!

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#704

Post by throwawaylinux » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 7:38 AM UTC

pasabagi wrote: post #698

throwawaylinux wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What profound political effects do you think would probably be caused by these attributes being different?

Consider something like the role of courage in military tactics. If you had some populations who were simply less courageous than others, you'd have a different baseline for stuff like, does a phalanx work? Is a phalanx even necessary? Even a minute difference in something like this would change the mechanics of the formation. So stuff like Alexander's globe-spanning conquests would suddenly become impossible as he h…

There has been an extremely long and celebrated history of different nations and peoples employing different military tactics and being known for different sets of skills in battle.

But aside from that, it seems like everything you wrote is pure conjecture and even if some of it was true, that absolutely does not prove a point about there being no genetic component to intellectual diversity.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#705

Post by cloudfifty » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 7:39 AM UTC

zepto wrote: post #674

cloudfifty wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still not true.

You: “The regimes that are commonly referred to never turned authoritarian, they started authoritarian - much to Chomsky's and other libertarian socialists dismay.”

Didn't you get the hint with Chomsky being both a socialist and anti-authoritarian may mean that socialism is not just those regimes? I'll assume you're just being willfully obtuse at this point (and given your comment history, I'm not surprised).

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#706

Post by cloudfifty » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 7:44 AM UTC

zepto wrote: post #545

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.

Is it? The socialists I am aware of are openly anti-capitalist, and want to focus on oppression above anything else, placing race and gender based oppression at the top of a hierarchy to be countered. They are explicitly opposed to many aspects of the Scandinavian model which is largely market based, for example School Vouchers which are used in Sweden, would unthinkable to an American socialist.

> School Vouchers which are used in Sweden

That has been a disaster in Sweden. With increased segregation, corruption, and inflation in grades to please "customers".

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#707

Post by littlestymaar » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 7:45 AM UTC

pasabagi wrote: post #669

littlestymaar wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It is obvious that there are many attributes that varies (skin color, eye color, eye shape, hair thickness, hair color, nose shape, lactose tolerance, height distribution, breast size, etc.).

But, it doesn't mean that every attribute varies this way. That's exactly what I'm arguing against actually.

About psychological traits you mention, there's so much cultural influence I don't think genetics would have any visible impact even if it was a factor (I'd be surprised if genetics played zero role here, but I expect the genetic-induced variance to be much lower than the culturally-induced one).

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#708

Post by pasabagi » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 7:48 AM UTC

throwawaylinux wrote: post #704

pasabagi wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider something like the role of courage in military tactics. If you had some populations who were simply less courageous than others, you'd have a different baseline for stuff like, does a phalanx work? Is a phalanx even necessary? Even a minute difference in something like this would change the mechanics of the formation. So stuff like Alexander's globe-spanning conquests would suddenly become impossible as he h…

There has been an extremely long and celebrated history of different nations and peoples employing different military tactics and being known for different sets of skills in battle. But aside from that, it seems like everything you wrote is pure conjecture and even if some of it was true, that absolutely does not prove a point about there being no genetic component to intellectual diversity.

Sure - the basic concept of a multi-ethnic social organization presupposes that ethnicity doesn't affect how you react on social conditions. In the 19th century and early 20th century, it became fashionable to say that only nations of one ethnicity could ever function. There are, however, many centuries of empires functioning with a myriad of ethnic and cultural groups living under the same law and administrative structure, and it works fine, because people are basically the same everywhere. If they weren't, it wouldn't.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#709

Post by littlestymaar » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 7:59 AM UTC

pasabagi wrote: post #698

throwawaylinux wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What profound political effects do you think would probably be caused by these attributes being different?

Consider something like the role of courage in military tactics. If you had some populations who were simply less courageous than others, you'd have a different baseline for stuff like, does a phalanx work? Is a phalanx even necessary? Even a minute difference in something like this would change the mechanics of the formation. So stuff like Alexander's globe-spanning conquests would suddenly become impossible as he h…

That doesn't mean there cannot be genetic variations on those attributes though. No two legionnaires had exactly the same size[1] but that didn't prevent building legions acting as a unit…

In fact, the whole purpose of the phalanx as a combat organization is to remove the weight of individual actions: you don't need “courage” (whatever that means[2]) to stand in a phalanx, because you're clumped up with every soldiers, and you have nowhere to flee (and btw those soldiers are your neighbors and relatives, so fleeing would destroy all your social life back home, putting an enormous social pressure on soldiers).

[1]: https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-... [2] https://acoup.blog/2021/02/05/collections-the-universal-warr...

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#710

Post by littlestymaar » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 8:05 AM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #689

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 It is by no means "the general argument" of the Bell Curve, and saying that pretty transparently shows that you have not read it. You are, of course, excused by the fact that the book has been the target of relentless smear campaign by media and many academics, which…

> The point of the book is largely that people within the same part of the world have widely varying outcomes, which, to a large degree, are explained by their IQ.

Except the data they use is not IQ (they are using AFQT Score because that's the available data) and they are artificially constructing an equivalent IQ. The original data doesn't even fit a bell curve (because there's no reason a given test should). For some reason, unjustified in the book, they assume that the AFQT score depends only from genetic factors and not from any kind of social determinism. The fact that the book liberally jumps from AFQT score to IQ to “genetic factor” is an enormous issue which completely destroys the credibility of their work.

Also, in their book it is “to a large degree, explained by their IQ”, because they controlled for almost no social or environmental factors: only the “parental socioeconomic status” (also a made-up metric) is taken into account.