31–40 of 141 posts
I am under the impression we (science) hasn't definitively determined causation for depression. How can you definitively determine a link without knowing the underlying causes. It would imply you know how it works, doesn't it?
This kind of science leaves me with lots and lots of questions. E.g.: As our understanding of DNA progresses, and we link more and more of it to different traits, will we eventually get into a situation where a swab on the water glass tells potential employer much more than the interview? Or: imagine that in addition to the discovery "viral DNA in the human genome linked to major psychiatric disorders" there's a disc…
> where a swab on the water glass tells potential employer much more than the interview? More likely RNA, because DNA doesn't mean traits are actually active. Also, only if you believe nature>>nurture and that experience doesn't matter. The level of understanding of your issues and how to counteract them makes a difference too. In practice you probably want someone with issues they know how to cope with and lots of e…
Imagine a situation where there are two presidential candidates, who are both somewhat bad, and then it becomes a matter of public knowledge that one of them has "Viral DNA in [his] genome linked to major psychiatric disorders". I don't think what I do or don't believe would matter in the larger scheme of things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> where a swab on the water glass tells potential employer much more than the interview? More likely RNA, because DNA doesn't mean traits are actually active. Also, only if you believe nature>>nurture and that experience doesn't matter. The level of understanding of your issues and how to counteract them makes a difference too. In practice you probably want someone with issues they know how to cope with and lots of e…
> only if you believe nature>>nurture Imagine a situation where there are two presidential candidates, who are both somewhat bad, and then it becomes a matter of public knowledge that one of them has "Viral DNA in [his] genome linked to major psychiatric disorders". I don't think what I do or don't believe would matter in the larger scheme of things.
So uhm, can/should we start cutting these proviruses(?) out of our genomes? Unintended consequences?
I love humans, we discover a new interesting thing, think we're big boys who understand everything there is to understand and that we can shape things to our will with no adverse consequences That's how we got asbestos in walls, lead in gas/paint, freon, pfas, &c. The same story over and over and over again. But sure go ahead and start slicing our dna, what could possibly go wrong?
Did you have a point?
Someone with a better grasp of the scientific method perhaps you can answer this. I am under the impression we (science) hasn't definitively determined causation for depression. How can you definitively determine a link without knowing the underlying causes. It would imply you know how it works, doesn't it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> only if you believe nature>>nurture Imagine a situation where there are two presidential candidates, who are both somewhat bad, and then it becomes a matter of public knowledge that one of them has "Viral DNA in [his] genome linked to major psychiatric disorders". I don't think what I do or don't believe would matter in the larger scheme of things.
The assumption is that they're comparable with nothing that makes one stand out ("both somewhat bad"). In that case, sure, it could mean something. But you rarely see that situation, because it doesn't make sense to run against someone not very different from you.
This kind of science leaves me with lots and lots of questions. E.g.: As our understanding of DNA progresses, and we link more and more of it to different traits, will we eventually get into a situation where a swab on the water glass tells potential employer much more than the interview? Or: imagine that in addition to the discovery "viral DNA in the human genome linked to major psychiatric disorders" there's a disc…
> E.g.: As our understanding of DNA progresses, and we link more and more of it to different traits, will we eventually get into a situation where a swab on the water glass tells potential employer much more than the interview? For almost anything that an interview is designed to discover: no. DNA manipulates probabilities of certain things in one direction or another, but then that probability shift is amplified and…
What frightens me is not what we can discover, it's what we as human society will do with that information once we discover it.
This kind of science leaves me with lots and lots of questions. E.g.: As our understanding of DNA progresses, and we link more and more of it to different traits, will we eventually get into a situation where a swab on the water glass tells potential employer much more than the interview? Or: imagine that in addition to the discovery "viral DNA in the human genome linked to major psychiatric disorders" there's a disc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> E.g.: As our understanding of DNA progresses, and we link more and more of it to different traits, will we eventually get into a situation where a swab on the water glass tells potential employer much more than the interview? For almost anything that an interview is designed to discover: no. DNA manipulates probabilities of certain things in one direction or another, but then that probability shift is amplified and…
Once we get past the diseases research, what's stopping us from going further? Could we discover e.g. a DNA sequence in human genome "linked" to higher intelligence, or better leadership qualities? And if yes, what can guarantee that instead of the Nazis' "master race" based on pseudo-scientific scull measurements we won't discover "master genes" based on actual DNA science? What frightens me is not what we can disco…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once we get past the diseases research, what's stopping us from going further? Could we discover e.g. a DNA sequence in human genome "linked" to higher intelligence, or better leadership qualities? And if yes, what can guarantee that instead of the Nazis' "master race" based on pseudo-scientific scull measurements we won't discover "master genes" based on actual DNA science? What frightens me is not what we can disco…
I think we're past that. Setting aside politically hot topics like IQ, Height is genetically determined and makes a huge difference in life outcomes. Now it's all about what we do with that information.