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

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#731

Post by xyzzyz » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 6:23 PM UTC

pcrh wrote: post #718

xyzzyz wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

70% is actually on the low side of today’s results. Observed heritability is lower in early childhood (meaning the amount of variance in intelligence among children explained by genes is “only” 20%-50%, “only” in quotes because it’s still large amount, as far as phenotypical traits are concerned), but grows to 80%+ in adulthood, even higher than that if you correct for attenuation (i.e. measurement error, which will…

It's interesting that you cite that Plomin article, since it actually concludes that only a small proportion of intelligence is genetically inherited. To quote: >Using years of education rather than intelligence per se, the meta-analysis mentioned earlier with 125 000 individuals in a discovery sample yielded a GPS that accounted for 2 and 3% in two independent samples.16 More variance in intelligence is likely to be…

You completely misunderstand the part you quote. What Plomin is saying is not that genetic heritability accounts for only 2-3% of the variance, but rather the GPSs, that is, the polygenic scores.

What that means is that we can now point to concrete genes that contribute to intelligence, and assign them weights that tell us the significance of this contribution. This means that this 2-3% figure is not about reality of genetic contribution to intelligence on the ground, but rather about our explicit understanding thereof in 2014, when this article was originally published.

Since then, our polygenic scores have significantly improved: for example, Lee et al in 2018 constructed polygenic scores that describe 11-13% of variance, a significant improvement over 2-3% result Plomin cites. There are probably even better results now, as the progress in the area is quick.

Of course, 11-13% is still short of 80%+ that we already know is determined by genes, but our explicit understanding is slowly getting there. Importantly, as we get there, the goalposts of critics are constantly shifting: when we couldn’t point out to specific genes, the entire notion of heritability was attacked. Now that we can, the alleged problems are with spurious correlations resulting from population stratification etc. Alas, the science moves forward, despite fierce opposition.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0147-3

> The denialism here lies with those who wish to believe that intelligence is largely genetically determined, rather than socially and environmentally determined.

I think your inability to distinguish between heritability and polygenic scores makes you thoroughly unqualified to make statements like that.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#732

Post by notSupplied » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 6:34 PM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #450

baybal2 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> assumptions which he brilliantly lays bare and then demolishes. He also questions the scientific significance of the research, even if it is true - a phrase he uses a lot. Absolutely true. Even if it's true, the society should not give ammunition to closet racists with their attempts to stealthily legitimise racism. Equally so, in the current immigration debacle, we need to call things their own names. What these p…

I wonder how many people who throw accusations of "closet X" and "stealth Y" so easily are, in fact, themselves closet X and stealth Y and generalize about other people based on their own carefully hidden prejudices.

Reminds me of Conflict vs Mistake theory. Mistake theorists worry about whether an idea is true. Conflict theorists worry about whether an idea is useful their enemies.

Shifting the argument to "bad faith", "closet X", "stealth Y" is exactly that: It says nothing about whether something true, only that "it helps the bad guys."

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#733

Post by pcrh » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 7:26 PM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #731

pcrh wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that you cite that Plomin article, since it actually concludes that only a small proportion of intelligence is genetically inherited. To quote: >Using years of education rather than intelligence per se, the meta-analysis mentioned earlier with 125 000 individuals in a discovery sample yielded a GPS that accounted for 2 and 3% in two independent samples.16 More variance in intelligence is likely to be…

You completely misunderstand the part you quote. What Plomin is saying is not that genetic heritability accounts for only 2-3% of the variance, but rather the GPSs, that is, the polygenic scores. What that means is that we can now point to concrete genes that contribute to intelligence, and assign them weights that tell us the significance of this contribution. This means that this 2-3% figure is not about reality of…

Polygenic scores are measures of the contributions of many genes to hereditability, what else do you think they are?

There are two questions here:

1) What genes contribute to human intelligence? Evidently there are some, as the structure of the brain humans are uniquely endowed with at birth is mostly determined genetically.

2) Do common variations in these genes contribute to common variations in human intelligence?

For 2) the answer is categorically "a few percent at most", even according to the sources you provide yourself. It's pointless denying this fact. Repeating that ~80% of variation in intelligence is genetic is displaying a limited understanding of inheritance.

To answer 1) it may be possible to identify those genes that contribute to intelligence by performing large scale genetic studies to identify the rare cases where a small signal is detected from one or several of these (a polygenic test, for example, as you are fond of).

Once these genes have been identified, one could then in theory investigate how they function, etc, in order to better understand the genetic basis of human intelligence, but it is unlikely to help understand the basis of the difference in intelligence between individuals.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#734

Post by xyzzyz » Wed, Sep 08, 2021, 10:15 PM UTC

pcrh wrote: post #733

xyzzyz wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You completely misunderstand the part you quote. What Plomin is saying is not that genetic heritability accounts for only 2-3% of the variance, but rather the GPSs, that is, the polygenic scores. What that means is that we can now point to concrete genes that contribute to intelligence, and assign them weights that tell us the significance of this contribution. This means that this 2-3% figure is not about reality of…

Polygenic scores are measures of the contributions of many genes to hereditability, what else do you think they are? There are two questions here: 1) What genes contribute to human intelligence? Evidently there are some, as the structure of the brain humans are uniquely endowed with at birth is mostly determined genetically. 2) Do common variations in these genes contribute to common variations in human intelligence?…

> Polygenic scores are measures of the contributions of many genes to hereditability, what else do you think they are?

They are not “measures” in the same sense measuring tape is a measure of length. They are like credit scores: they are useful to predict likelihood of defaulting on a loan, but they do not give you full understanding of the entire reality on the ground. With better constructed credit scores you can get better at predicting defaults, just like Lee et al got better at predicting educational attainment than the 2-3% figure Plomin quoted. No sane person would say that Experian credit scores give you complete understanding of given persons credit ability and their future credit behavior, and no sane person will tell you that polygenic scores of intelligence/educational attainment give you complete picture of a person’s intelligence or education. Do you understand it now?

If you’re still confused, try to think about this: if what Plomin meant, like you suggest, that genes only explain 2-3% of variance in educational attainment, how is it possible that only 4 years later, Lee et al exhibited PGS explaining 11-13% of variance? Have genes got 4 times stronger in 4 years?

> For 2) the answer is categorically "a few percent at most", even according to the sources you provide yourself.

No, it is not. I encourage you to put some effort into understanding what is being talked about here.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#735

Post by zepto » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 12:40 AM UTC

cloudfifty wrote: post #706

zepto wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

They were introduced because the existing school system was in decline. The fact that they haven’t reversed the trend doesn’t mean they are the underlying cause.

Regardless, the point is that Scandinavian countries are not “socialist” in the way leftist Americans think of socialism.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#736

Post by MichaelZuo » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 2:41 AM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #728

MichaelZuo wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

‘ but since that is inherent to capitalism it can still be said to be part of capitalism without any restraint.’ It certainly seems like your assigning 100% of it.

It is inherent to capitalism that not 100% of political power belong to capitalists, yes. That's not equivalent to what you claim I said.

If they don’t have 100%, how can they engage in unhindered capitalism? If the other forces hold even 1% of the total, they by definition can hinder the capitalist forces.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#737

Post by cloudfifty » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 6:16 AM UTC

zepto wrote: post #735

cloudfifty wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

They were introduced because the existing school system was in decline. The fact that they haven’t reversed the trend doesn’t mean they are the underlying cause. Regardless, the point is that Scandinavian countries are not “socialist” in the way leftist Americans think of socialism.

> They were introduced because the existing school system was in decline

Not true at all. Why are you making shit up?

They were introduced to "give choice". And marketed - by the right-wing government at that time btw - like small teacher-led "idea-based" companies or similar would be the primary result, rather than the large stock-market school corps that have been the natural result.

> Regardless, the point is that Scandinavian countries are not “socialist” in the way leftist Americans think of socialism.

Just because Scandinavia (Sweden in particular) too has suffered with a massive wave of neo-liberal privatizations the last 30 years or so doesn't mean that the former more "socialist" way was in any way shape or form worse than the corrupt mess that we have here now.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#738

Post by raxxorrax » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 6:47 AM UTC

someguy321 wrote: post #637

raxxorrax wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

> This seems absurd to me.

To me too, I didn't mean to endorse that view, but it is the ruleset a lot of policies are based upon.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#739

Post by dash2 » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 9:04 AM UTC

cloudfifty wrote: post #725

dash2 wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He opposes it when it turns up. But for example, he was frightfully keen on Venezuela's "21st century socialism" until it predictably, and predictedly, became yet another authoritarian failure: https://iea.org.uk/but-that-wasnt-real-socialism-part-3-vene...

What a ridiculously biased Fox News level link. Clearly no room for a fruitful discussion here.

Do you think they invented his quotes? There's usually room for a fruitful discussion if you want one.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#740

Post by abvdasker » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 9:23 AM UTC

concordDance wrote: post #269

This is an important subject but it's also toxic, particularly with political headlines like this which I don't think should be on Hacker news. Better to focus on the science.

This is a story which was likely written at the behest of the publisher as a pre-release book review. Harden's participation -- and her own book by the sound of it -- is explicitly political. To read between the lines a bit more one can infer that Harden is trying to build a brand beyond academia. My point being that the principal scientist in the piece is no longer just a scientist, so it's appropriate to widen the scope.

I agree with you though that the headline, much of the article, and arguably some of Harden's presentation of her work is irresponsible.