Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

osf.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 198 posts

Re: Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

#171

Post by lazide »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #131
lazide wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you're saying you don't (actually) believe in free will, philosophically. People who do believe in free will make an argument that regardless of the input state, the individual always has a choice what course they take, and is responsible for those decisions. So for example, if someone chooses to be a concentration camp guard or a capo vs be a prisoner and be murdered - that is their choice, and they are responsi…

>People who do believe in free will make an argument that regardless of the input state, the individual always has a choice what course they take, and is responsible for those decision My point is that even with free will, you have to have some difference in input to get different output. Normally people invoke metaphysics, but even if you have a soul making the choice, it still has inputs (good soul/bad soul). It is…

Ah, but the position of “My point is that even with free will, you have to have some difference in input to get different output.” is fundamentally at odds with having free will. Because free will means to actually have a independent choice. To not have the outcomes/decisions be predetermined or fixed.

But that position means all resulting choices are fundamentally due to the inputs, which means there actually is no possibility for a truly independent or ‘free’ choice, no? The outcome was inevitable when the input was fixed, de facto.

That is the crux of the issue.

Notably this debate has been going on as long as we have records, so not like we’re going to ‘solve’ it now.

Re: Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

#172

Post by s1artibartfast »

mjburgess wrote: post #70
em-bee wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as i mentioned in another comment, what bothers me the most is that heritability is used as an excuse for not changing certain traits and and as a reason to demand the right to continue bad behaviors

Well, remember: heritability of scottish accents is near 100%, and heritability of two eyes is near 0%. Why? The covariance of genes with accent is near 100%: almost everyone who speaks scottish interbreeds within the same geographical area. As for eyes: there is almost no variation in the species between the number of eyes. Since ~everyone has 2, no genetic variation whatsoever discriminates. The co-variation of a g…

> heritability of two eyes is near 0%.

Isn't that just an example of poor sampling/ test hypothesis? Heritability of eyes should be 100% (as predicted) if you include people with genetic blindness.

There obviously are genes for eyes, and they have a causal relationship with humans having eyes. They may have many variations that produce working eyes, but that doesnt mean the relation isnt causal.

Maybe i miss how this relates to your greater point that genetic associations are just coincidental, not causal.

Seems easy enough to test for the case of genetic intelligence. If you find a subset of genes within genetically diverse populations that cross culture, geography, and societies, then you would need a very strong rationale for coincidental association.

Re: Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

#173

Post by lazide »

kipchak wrote: post #167
lazide wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That reduces expected consequences, but I don’t see how that changes the problem.

If I understand correctly you're saying that people having a lack of free will cuts out the legs from the rationale for punishing people if they have not chosen to do something wrong. The five purposes for punishment as I understand it are generally deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution and restitution. Retribution and restitution as punishments don't seem justifiable without free will or the abilit…

Currently in western society, we consider someone who commits 1st degree murder to be guilty/bad, not mentally incompetent though.

Changing that would require a complete rethink of core western philosophy IMO.

Re: Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

#174

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #60
darby_eight wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This implies one's being upper class is a reflection of having better habits than the poor, which is incorrect. They just have more money. Rich people could not survive poverty.

I largely disagree due to social mobility. If you look at the differences between people who escape poverty and those that don't, you will find major differences in Habits and capability. If you look at people who drop in social class and those that dont, you will also find differences. If starting wealth was all that mattered, and human behavior had zero impact, you would see no mobility. I guess one could chalk mob…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40208907

Re: Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

#175

Post by lazide »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #146
pineaux wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the free will debate is not about this. Its more about the question if the mind is part of a deterministic universe, thus being deterministic itself. I dont believe this myself. The universe is quasi deterministic. I would say it's emergent. So there are constantly "random" things that are building on top of the n-1 condition. This random things can be an electron that moves left instead of right. Or it allow…

I guess my argument and problem is with the idea of a non-deterministic mind. I think it is a non-sensical concept. Even if the mind is free from physical world constraints, it is still subject to it's own nature. If the mind is self direction, the nature of the mind or soul determines its choice. I dont see how this changes the question of free will from a personal or moral responsibility perspective. Someone can as…

It absolutely impacts the question - because in your example, there is no actual choice available on behalf of the person. All they have is their inevitable fate, as it were, that they are playing out. And while that fate may not be known in advance, it is unchangeable and fixed.

Re: Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

#176

Post by anon291 »

Aerbil313 wrote: post #151
heyjamesknight wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reproducibility crisis and general decay of academia has given us a few decades of bad science. Entire fields have been built using massaged statistics to deny common sense in the pursuit of tenure. We're just now "unlearning" much of this, especially in the social sciences.

Why would we be "unlearning" anything now? It doesn't make sense. What changed? Are academicians not monetarily awarded for attention-grabbing and breakthrough-sounding research anymore?

I mean, these fields weren't considered fields before. Sociology is a new field in that the methods it uses (the scientific method) are now being newly applied to social issues. There are several metaphysical and semantic questions to be answered here. Is the scientific method even appropriate for studying society? One prerequisite for the application of the scientific method is the belief that the laws being studied are fixed. Does that apply to every sociological question? If not, then the entire field is called into question.

In times past, sociology would be the realm of philosophers who would, after careful study (not scientific, just regular human intuition) and reading (so they could 'experience' past events), would come up with a framework of human behavior and then defend it.

Re: Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

#177

Post by anon291 »

NetBeck wrote: post #46
blackhawkC17 wrote: post #32

I feel this factor plays a huge role in rich/upper middle class/upper-class people staying rich or growing richer. Kids that grow up upper-class imitate their parent’s approach to work and life in general, giving them an upper-hand. Many poor kids are very smart and capable but end up imitating bad examples early on, making them handicapped. One of the best things a disadvantaged kid can get is a good role model. Doe…

>It is estimated that 70% of wealthy families will lose their wealth by the second generation and 90% will lose it by the third.[0] [0] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational-wealth%3A-why-d...

That's losing their wealth, not becoming trapped in poverty. Wealth (as in hard cash) is fleeting. The behaviors that create wealth are not. I truly contend that, in America at least (what I'm familiar with), everyone can achieve a solid life. You might not be wealthy, but you will be able to support yourself and provide for a family. People losing their wealth does not mean they become destitute, nor should it. It just means they fall into a more 'normal' cohort.

Re: Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

#178

Post by steve_adams_86 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #157
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are cross-disciplinary, longitudinal, and meta-analysis studies which seem to support that when people experience adversity or various forms of trauma, they are far more likely than the general population to perpetuate the same or other harms upon others. It doesn’t strike me as colloquial at all. Psychology, neurology, and sociology each find this trend and various context-specific candidates for causal mechan…

What are the best studies? There is evidence pointing against environmental unicausality. [0][1] Both these and the studies you mention will have trouble disentangling causality because nobody can run ethical experiments. [0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266717432... [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6758596/

Right, I agree. We’re at a point where there’s an intangible and perhaps subjective aspect of human experience (maybe it reduces to consciousness in general?) which we can’t really nail down firmly.

I’ve preferred studies I’ve seen over the ones with contradict them (usually due to study design and the rigour behind them), but I’ll have to look at yours and reassess.

I think I’ve also leaned towards environmental factors in part because it encourages more prosocial responses if your morality is inclined in that direction. That’s purely subjective, and while not colloquially driven, it isn’t scientific.

I’ll have to think about it. I did feel science was more conclusively in the environmental spectrum of cause in this context, but you’ve got me wondering just how conclusive it could be beyond “seems statistically probable” while never being close to certain. Especially without unethical studies.

I’ll dig up some studies I’ve liked over the years to compare with what you’ve got here.

Re: Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

#179

Post by lazide »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #170
kipchak wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would fall under the deterrence category no? Assuming free will does not exist the only types of punishment that seem by and large unjustifiable without the capacity to be at fault or culpability are retributive and restitutive punishment, for the same reasons we wouldn't consider it justifiable for someone not of sound mind.

Yes, my example can be framed in terms of deterrence. However, I think punishment can fill many purposes. Retribution is largely in the eyes of victim, so the need is subjective and depends on their emotional desire for revenge. I'm not convinced that victims will be emotionally satisfied with the explanation of causal chain that goes back to the big bang. To be honest, I dont really understand how the concept of res…

If someone took action because of rational choice, they can make a different choice/action in the future.

If someone is a ‘bad puppet’/fundamentally programmed badly, then what choice do we have except to destroy them or ‘rewrite’ their programming?

That is the difference, and a big one - because in the first case, consent is possible and meaningful.

The second one, it is not.

Post reply on HN