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

23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

blog.23andme.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 245 posts

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#171

Post by mvleming »

justincormack wrote: post #168
mvleming wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree with you. I don't believe that every action is correctly designed to optimize gene transmissions and I think you put it into very eloquent words with: "it is trying to say that we are at a global maximum in a space that is probably more nonlinear." However, I think that there are certain actions that we take that are clearly defined by our genetics, like the fact that we eat, or that we have sex. A…

I agree absolutely it is more likely. And I read The Selfish Gene. But how could you disprove that theory? it is sort of too obviously true, if you see what I mean. Which is why I brought up the homosexuality counterexample. So I don't think it should be taken as undeniable, even though it is plausible.

I see what you're trying to get at. You're saying that "x% of children are not genetically related to their fathers because women have affairs to increase the competition for her egg" is a theory, not to be taken as something true.

I didn't mean to make myself sound like that I was saying it was. I was just suggesting something and I agree with you: it is plausible, but it is still a theory at the end of the day.

We're on the same page. :)

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#172

Post by javert »

mvleming wrote: post #164
justincormack wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. That's a theory and it is one that is hard to disprove experimentally. It is a much stronger theory than evolution, saying that every action is correctly designed to optimise gene transmission. Essentially it is trying to say that we are at a global maximum in a space that is probably more nonlinear. In fact our genes may well be suboptimal in some respects even if you think they have "control". The conto…

I completely agree with you. I don't believe that every action is correctly designed to optimize gene transmissions and I think you put it into very eloquent words with: "it is trying to say that we are at a global maximum in a space that is probably more nonlinear." However, I think that there are certain actions that we take that are clearly defined by our genetics, like the fact that we eat, or that we have sex. A…

That we have sex is defined by our genes; who we have sex with is a choice we make by thinking about it, not something pre-encoded by our genes, as you are trying to say.

Which actually makes sense given your premises. A good evolutionary "strategy" would be to evolve brains that can make choices far more complex (literally, inelligently) than what can be pre-encoded by genes that change slowly and mutate randomly.

In summary, you are implying that when you have an affair, it's not a choice, but it's determined by your genes. Thus, it's not a moral issue; you have no choice. Thus, you can justify having any particular affair by claiming "genes," and you should just forgive any particular affair your wife has for the same reason. And I'm saying, no, it's a choice.

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#173

Post by mvleming »

javert wrote: post #172
mvleming wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree with you. I don't believe that every action is correctly designed to optimize gene transmissions and I think you put it into very eloquent words with: "it is trying to say that we are at a global maximum in a space that is probably more nonlinear." However, I think that there are certain actions that we take that are clearly defined by our genetics, like the fact that we eat, or that we have sex. A…

That we have sex is defined by our genes; who we have sex with is a choice we make by thinking about it, not something pre-encoded by our genes, as you are trying to say. Which actually makes sense given your premises. A good evolutionary "strategy" would be to evolve brains that can make choices far more complex (literally, inelligently ) than what can be pre-encoded by genes that change slowly and mutate randomly.…

There was actually a study that showed female rats are more attracted to (read: had sex with) male rats with very different immune systems. The way she senses this is by the pheromone (smell) he gives off and as a consequence, her offspring have stronger immune systems.

In other words, this study suggests at least to some degree we don't even choose who we have sex with. Haha.

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#174

Post by PStamatiou »

For those interested, I reviewed 23andMe when it first came out: http://paulstamatiou.com/review-23andme-dna-testing-for-heal... (I always get a nice traffic spike whenever it goes on sale --- I purchased it for some $500 back in the day)

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#175

Post by loceng »

hop wrote: post #110
loceng wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you joking?

Ha, no. And my new sister's husband is also happens to be a phd geneticist.

"Crazy" and cool. I never thought about the connections that could occur through DNA matching.

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#178

Post by graeme »

carbocation wrote: post #97
graeme wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

predisposed: make someone liable or inclined to a specified attitude, action, or condition. Just because you're more inclined to do something, doesn't mean you're likely to do something. See the other comment about a 50% increased likelihood moving someone from 1% to 1.5% risk of succumbing to alcoholism. That said, a lot of people may make the same mistake and succumb to alcoholism erroneously based on the tests.

What you are saying is so true that it becomes almost irrelevant to the discussion. Or, rather, if people understand what you are saying then the rest of the discussion is moot. So the discussion is premised on the fact that many people don't have enough statistical understanding to consider things through that lens. Let us assume that the absolute risk is non-negligible, and that the predisposition is also non-negli…

Oh, ok. Like the other commentor, I took your original comment as a serious argument.

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#179

Post by himlion »

PStamatiou wrote: post #174

For those interested, I reviewed 23andMe when it first came out: http://paulstamatiou.com/review-23andme-dna-testing-for-heal... (I always get a nice traffic spike whenever it goes on sale --- I purchased it for some $500 back in the day)

I read that post a long time ago, it was very useful :).

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#180

Post by Florin_Andrei »

chad_oliver wrote: post #159
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we shouldn't care about privacy here? That's pretty serious if it was how I thought.

No, he's merely saying that we are more privacy-conscious than the average group of people. I don't think he was claiming that was good or bad, just abnormal.

No, he's merely alluding to differences between people-oriented and systems-oriented folks.
Post reply on HN