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

301–310 of 756 posts

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#301

Post by raverbashing »

pedrosorio wrote: post #240
armchairhacker wrote: post #219

Genetics has a huge influence on what someone is predisposed to and what they can achieve. Certain ethnic groups and families, on average, are more likely to have certain traits and less likely to have others. But genetics doesn't matter , in that just because you have "bad" genetics doesn't mean you'll suck, whether it comes to weightlifting, intelligence, temperment, etc. Maybe you won't be in the top 0.0001%, but…

Kenyans, Ethiopians and (white) Americans are not genetically homogenous. Even two siblings can be quite different genetically. The great American distance runners have genetic talent - they didn’t just train harder than their middle school mates who were out of breath while the champions ran faster and longer than anyone else weeks after beginning training.

> have genetic talent - they didn’t just train harder than their middle school mates who were out of breath

Who knows if it was only due to genes? And more importantly, there isn't a gene that's about running faster. (sure, some genes are helpful and might get you in front - not discounting the work the athlete goes through)

Getting to the podium is a mix of several characteristics: Some people might be more prone to muscle recovery/injury resistance. Another one has a better muscle fiber mix. Another one has different muscle attachment positions. And another one feels less pain.

Though yes your genetics probably will push you towards a sport. Take the 100m finalists and put them to train marathon (and vice versa) and they'll probably go to the back of the pack even with good training.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#302

Post by jhoechtl »

woko wrote: post #294
DangitBobby wrote: post #76

People strongly want to believe that intelligence doesn't have a strong genetic component, I think mainly for moral reasons. If not everyone can be expected to learn and be proficient in everything due to genetics, then suddenly merit itself is also based strongly on luck, and now the belief that people with greater merit should have better lives no longer seems fair. Intelligence is now just another gift to the fort…

> People strongly want to believe that intelligence doesn't have a strong genetic component, I think mainly for moral reasons. More so because there is no proof for that. Individuals exhibit different levels of intelligence. Sure, life is unfair. However, individuals do not necessarily inherit intelligence from their parents' genes. Seriously, who could think that you could build a lineage of "gifted persons" solely…

> However, individuals do not necessarily inherit intelligence from their parents' genes.

While they do not necessarily inherit intelligence, there is a non-zero likelihood that eg. intelligence is a gene-thing. This non-zero likelihood might be bigger than a primarily by moral standards led discussion might suggest us to be.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#303

Post by goatlover »

kitsune_ wrote: post #148
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…

The elephant in the room is that math has a giant UX problem. The notation is inconsistent and not nearly as logical as it could be.

Ken Iverson thought mathematical notation was inconsistent, so he wanted to invent a better notation for thinking, which became the programming language APL. But APL syntax never captured the mainstream. Neither did Lisp for that matter. It was C-style syntax that ended up dominating.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#304

Post by bjourne »

luckylion wrote: post #277
bjourne wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People like me would be more convinced by your rant/flamebait if you provided sources for your claims. You claimed that the "broad strokes here are not up for debate" so it should be trivial for you to provide sources. Since you don't, it's hard to take your arguments seriously. Everyone can make unsubstantiated claims, providing evidence is the difficult part. I'm sure you understand that the "trust me, I'm a scient…

> People like me would be more convinced by your flamebait if you provided sources for your claims. To be honest, from what I've read in these comments: I doubt it. There's a lot of goal-post moving and deflection ("but what even is intelligence", "but what if we never taught people to speak", "but why should it even matter") that I believe Betteridge's law of headlines still holds.

I don't think denigrating others contributes to a healthy debate.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#305

Post by Kim_Bruning »

sfblah wrote: post #273
pcrh wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Intelligence is largely (~70-80% of variance) inherited Also a scientist here.... Intelligence, however measured, is largely inherited. However, that inheritance is not genetic, but social. It's now been rigorously demonstrated that common variation in genetics has very little to do with intelligence as generally conceived. Just for some examples of well-powered studies: >A genome-wide polygenic score constructed fr…

Our inability to identify the genes responsible for intelligence doesn’t equate to them not existing. Our understanding of genetics is still extremely nascent.

I'll tell you what genes are responsible for intelligence if you can tell me which machine code instructions are responsible for Mario. ;-)

(

I might need to expand on that a little:

I predict that "the genes responsible for intelligence" are not a thing. I think that genes tend to work together to make a living organism similar to how machine code instructions work together to make a program run.

So for example: I'm pretty sure that looking at the design of eg. a 6502 can't directly predict the existence of Mario:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/055624v2.full

If you can't easily predict what neurons will do based on their layout, what chance do you have to predict the exact outcome of the genes which specify that layout?

You're going to need more data than just the genes alone.

)

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#306

Post by pcrh »

sfblah wrote: post #273
pcrh wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Intelligence is largely (~70-80% of variance) inherited Also a scientist here.... Intelligence, however measured, is largely inherited. However, that inheritance is not genetic, but social. It's now been rigorously demonstrated that common variation in genetics has very little to do with intelligence as generally conceived. Just for some examples of well-powered studies: >A genome-wide polygenic score constructed fr…

Our inability to identify the genes responsible for intelligence doesn’t equate to them not existing. Our understanding of genetics is still extremely nascent.

These studies are highly powered statistically. One conclusion you can definitely draw is that common variation in intelligence is not primarily caused by common genetic variation.

Evidently, our genes determine our brain, and are what makes us more intelligent than other animals. But between individual humans, genetic variation contributes to only a few percent of variation.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#307

Post by Sholmesy »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #288
armchairhacker wrote: post #219

Genetics has a huge influence on what someone is predisposed to and what they can achieve. Certain ethnic groups and families, on average, are more likely to have certain traits and less likely to have others. But genetics doesn't matter , in that just because you have "bad" genetics doesn't mean you'll suck, whether it comes to weightlifting, intelligence, temperment, etc. Maybe you won't be in the top 0.0001%, but…

Genes describe lot of things from obese tendency to height to IQ to your looks. If someone has an IQ of 70, there are very likely to live a difficult life. Yes IQ is not intelligence you will say but still there is a limit to everyday functioning if someone's IQ is low. Ask a conventional ugly person(specially female) about their life.

I agree with you, but an IQ of 70 is mentally disabled, so it's not really a good example of "bad" genetics, so much as it is an example of a disability.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#308

Post by jhoechtl »

Even if progressives can be convinced that genetics matters (re-using the OPs title), what next? In how far shall this insight be used to re-consider our living-together?

Shall this lead to a scientifically backed reason to stigmatize groups? Shall this lead to a blessed segregation of people?

Would this lead to a better co-existance of people or a worse one?

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#309

Post by angelzen »

xyzzyz wrote: post #289
angelzen wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ask yourself: if notation was genuinely confusing, why would mathematicians make themselves suffer needlessly? Sometimes notation elides 'obvious details'. The details are obvious to those that have already gone through the learning curve, which is easier if one is strongly connected to other working mathematicians than for outsiders. Mathematicians barely notice inadequate or unusual notation. Outsiders struggle a…

> Anecdote 1: Sometimes notation is too terse: single letters. Granted, efficient for whiteboard scribbling. Would be really nice to standardize an appendix for notation. E[X] = . Hmmm, what could E be? By the fifth paper, somebody bothers to write 'expected value' in plain English and the mystery in unambiguously clarified. In a voice-based interaction this is a non-issue, not so for those that only have text to dea…

Technically speaking, there are other cultural spaces than US/English. In one such space E[X] is written M(X) and called 'average value'. But that's quibbling. 'Expected value' is simply 'weighted sum' over possible values with respective probabilities as weights: weighted average value. Not exactly rocket science if one groks what a probability distribution is. But even that is quibbling. The more interesting point is that some would rather starting learning from concrete applications instead of pacing through a seemingly endless dry litany of definitions. Cryptic notation is unhelpful for this style of learning.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#310

Post by concordDance »

beej71 wrote: post #82
ctrlp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want everyone to pass, lower the standards. The end result will be that certificates from schools without high standards will be worth less in the eyes of employers (while still costing the same to the student). As they progress through such a system, some students will be placed in advance of their abilities and fail out at a higher rate than they might otherwise when they reach an institution with non-negoti…

Why not improve at teaching the material instead of lowering the standards?

How? Hundreds of billions of dollars and a million man years have been spent on that problem to get to the current state.
Post reply on HN