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

Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 756 posts

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#31

Post by myWindoonn »

syops wrote: post #2

From the article: Over the next year, a biosciences working group revised the program’s funding guidelines, stipulating in the final draft that it would not support any research into the first-order effects of genes on behavior or social outcomes. The fact that this area is controversial suggests to me that it is worth exploration. I’ve taught mathematics at community colleges for over 20 years and I’m absolutely con…

Hello, fellow mathematician. The first step in your proof which doesn't convince me is the claim that, in general, "levels of intelligence" exist, admit a partial order, and can reliably predict whether certain people can learn certain topics.

In general, you'll find that "leftists" believe that psychometrics is bogus in terms of science. Instead, it masquerades as science in order to fool the public into believing that biased public policy is neutral. There's no denial that some folks have brain damage, developmental disabilities, etc. but a denial that standardized tests are an appropriate proxy for genuine medical diagnoses.

Community colleges should present themselves as a public benefit. We shouldn't ask that everybody pass any class, simply that everybody has the opportunity to attend/audit any class. It is unfortunately true that the typical university administration is clueless and money-grubbing, preferring graduation rates to other metrics.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#32

Post by [deleted] »

basementcat wrote: post #9
linksnapzz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some years ago, California tried to make it so that you had to pass Algebra II to graduate high school. I think the state backed down from that, because it meant only 25% of students could pass. Or maybe they just bowdlerized the definition of algebra II. It’s too bad, because I don’t think anyone should be able to leave high school without understanding compound interest-sorta vital for participating in a modern eco…

I wonder how much of the difficulty is due to large class size. If the student to teacher ratio were smaller, would teachers be better able to tailor instruction to struggling students?

[deleted]

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#33

Post by sjwalter »

shashwatak wrote: post #5
syops wrote: post #2

From the article: Over the next year, a biosciences working group revised the program’s funding guidelines, stipulating in the final draft that it would not support any research into the first-order effects of genes on behavior or social outcomes. The fact that this area is controversial suggests to me that it is worth exploration. I’ve taught mathematics at community colleges for over 20 years and I’m absolutely con…

perhaps some people cannot learn algebra / calculus the way it is traditionally taught in the classroom. perhaps the students who are failing just need a different environment, more time, more patience, different resources?

Obviously there are people who couldn't learn a given topic under one type of educational regime but who could under a different regime. But that doesn't eliminate the obvious: Some people can't learn a given topic at all, under any circumstances. OP's example of the mentally retarded (which I learned recently is a valid medical descriptor) is just an extreme example.

It's so funny watching people scramble to avoid admitting that genetics has a huge impact on humans and their potentialities.

Granted, as a species, we are the closest to blank-slate out of any species ("niche-switching is our niche"), but reality doesn't go away just 'cause we don't like it.

A good deal of the folks enmeshed in various delusions related to their belief that reality is socially constructed, I've found, are folks that have little concrete experience with reality. Academic types, those who've exclusively worked in knowledge-production or in offices. Rock climbers and farmers are very much not prone to these delusions, for a couple of examples.

Try to convince a dog breeder that dopey English Mastiffs are just an environmental change away from gaining the intelligence of the German Short-Haired Pointer, which can practically solve Sudokus.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#34

Post by spaniard89277 »

stathibus wrote: post #28
spaniard89277 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Years of administration telling the math department that our passing rate is too low have led me to pretty much pass everyone who takes the final exam. Last semester 80% passed but only around 50% deserved to Doesn't this contribute to lower the reputation of the universities? I mean, I did sociology in a small university in northern Spain and there was debate between the stats and methodology professors and pretty…

Maybe this is a stupid question, but is there any indication that most US universities cared about their academic reputation in the first place? I don't see any.

Well in Spain everybody says to care, yet I see what I see. Not to mention that everyone complains about the low rankings of spanish unis, but I'd say that's mostly a consquence of money and some biases at play.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#35

Post by Ekaros »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #10
syops wrote: post #2

From the article: Over the next year, a biosciences working group revised the program’s funding guidelines, stipulating in the final draft that it would not support any research into the first-order effects of genes on behavior or social outcomes. The fact that this area is controversial suggests to me that it is worth exploration. I’ve taught mathematics at community colleges for over 20 years and I’m absolutely con…

I like to feel the same way as your colleagues about "everyone can learn to code". I can definitely say that there are many people for whom it is a struggle - even those on college courses. But a hundred years ago we could easily have the same conversation about simply reading and writing - they (the poor, women, or "lower class" ) luke not be taught to read. But it turns out that if you start young enough, and put e…

I think we can still have discussion about functional illiteracy. That is group who can technically read, but not at level needed for every day life. Very likely there is certain part of normal distribution who can't reach that level. But how large we can expect it to be is good question to consider.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#36

Post by TameAntelope »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #17

The left often accuses the right of being anti-science -- e.g. on climate change, and now vaccines -- with good reason. But it's true that the left has its own troubles with being opposed to science, and genetic effects on behavior is one example. Being egalitarian-minded, many progressives are inherently hostile to the idea that our personalities and behaviors may be hardwired on some level...except that they don't…

Surely you see the negative consequences of past inquiry as, at the very least, a cautionary tale?

The idea of, "Science at all cost!" should, by now, be thoroughly debunked for a number of very clear reasons, some specifically in this area of genetics and psychology (is there an exception for Poe's Law when talking about genetic behavioral outcomes?).

We must be careful, and Dr. Harden does seem to understand that, which is good.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#37

Post by sjwalter »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #14
Falandafa2021 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or more likely that people are different and not everything is environment.

Or even more likely the environment fails to accommodate for people being different.

Yes, different environments exclude and include some people, those who may be on the border of capability seem likeliest to be impacted here. That still doesn't mean that ALL people can learn calculus, given enough attempts to find the right environment for each of them.

Shows, also, the silliness of this argument. Some people can pick up calc at age 10 no sweat whatsoever. Others struggle mightily with the basics in their 30s. Should we as a society invest 1000x the resources in the strugglers to ensure they can achieve the same understanding?

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#38

Post by temp8964 »

DrLindemann wrote: post #20
syops wrote: post #2

From the article: Over the next year, a biosciences working group revised the program’s funding guidelines, stipulating in the final draft that it would not support any research into the first-order effects of genes on behavior or social outcomes. The fact that this area is controversial suggests to me that it is worth exploration. I’ve taught mathematics at community colleges for over 20 years and I’m absolutely con…

I think in the paedagogy community genetics is often an excuse for the unwillingness to develop right teaching concepts. It's then the "fault" of the pupils. Polya did good works, especial regarding Mathematics. Of course there are genetic influences and not everybody can be an Einstein or rocket scientist. But below that level there is a lot possible that has nothing to do with genetics. Most things are more influen…

"The right proclaims everything is genetic". I don't know what kind of "right" are you talking about. I don't believe it is mainstream conservative thought to claim family/school training/displine/education does not matter but only genetics matters.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#40

Post by stolenmerch »

For anyone interested in this topic I highly recommend Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky's book "Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst". It does an excellent job showing the nuance and complexity between genetic determinism and social construction. After reading this book I understood the nature vs. nurture debate is somewhat artificial not terribly useful.
Post reply on HN