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

Ancient DNA reveals pervasive directional selection across West Eurasia [pdf]

reich.hms.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: Ancient DNA reveals pervasive directional selection across West Eurasia [pdf]

#51

Post by convolvatron »

timmg wrote: post #37
suzzer99 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few scientific topics that are too easily manipulated by bad actors who ignore all the nuance. You have to tread very, very carefully on those and ask yourself what good vs. what harm can come from it. We know from history that giving opportunist leaders a chance to classify humans into distinct sub-groups based on intelligence and other key traits ends in catastrophe.

I understand what you are saying and I don't disagree with the idea that bad actors will use science in bad ways. But I think going down this path of denying (or hiding) science that can be used for bad ideas ends up causing (rightly, imho) a distrust of science -- which is far worse. A distrust of science (not saying it was caused by this particular issue) is how we ended up with so much anti-vax sentiment in the US…

it seems like you are simultaneously arguing for a science that holds itself outside public opinion, and one that is beholden to it.

no, wait, I get it.

all scientists should expect mistrust because of perceptions of bias of any of them, regardless of how well founded. that seems at the very least unproductive.

Re: Ancient DNA reveals pervasive directional selection across West Eurasia [pdf]

#52

Post by timmg »

convolvatron wrote: post #51
timmg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you are saying and I don't disagree with the idea that bad actors will use science in bad ways. But I think going down this path of denying (or hiding) science that can be used for bad ideas ends up causing (rightly, imho) a distrust of science -- which is far worse. A distrust of science (not saying it was caused by this particular issue) is how we ended up with so much anti-vax sentiment in the US…

it seems like you are simultaneously arguing for a science that holds itself outside public opinion, and one that is beholden to it. no, wait, I get it. all scientists should expect mistrust because of perceptions of bias of any of them, regardless of how well founded. that seems at the very least unproductive.

> it seems like you are simultaneously arguing for a science that holds itself outside public opinion, and one that is beholden to it.

Apologies if I did a bad job explaining my opinion. But I was attempting to argue the exact opposite of that.

My view is that science should be the search for truth. And that if the truth is inconvenient for some political (or other) reason, so bet it. The truth is the goal. Full stop.

My feeling is that if scientists stop pursuing truth in cases where it doesn't fit their politics, they will (rightly, IMHO) lose the trust of the public. (Of course, in particular, those in the public who have different politics.)

Re: Ancient DNA reveals pervasive directional selection across West Eurasia [pdf]

#53

Post by convolvatron »

timmg wrote: post #52
convolvatron wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it seems like you are simultaneously arguing for a science that holds itself outside public opinion, and one that is beholden to it. no, wait, I get it. all scientists should expect mistrust because of perceptions of bias of any of them, regardless of how well founded. that seems at the very least unproductive.

> it seems like you are simultaneously arguing for a science that holds itself outside public opinion, and one that is beholden to it. Apologies if I did a bad job explaining my opinion. But I was attempting to argue the exact opposite of that. My view is that science should be the search for truth. And that if the truth is inconvenient for some political (or other) reason, so bet it. The truth is the goal. Full stop…

so, because science as whole is not pursuing the idea that people with different genetics as a population are inferior in some ways to others with sufficient vigor, that we should expect a justifiable general distrust of science including completely unrelated results like global warming. I don't see how this is prescriptive in any way, except maybe to ... I guess find scientists that are will to accepting funding for ideas that are popular with some people? do you think that would help if they found those ideas to be meritless? or even if they didn't?

Re: Ancient DNA reveals pervasive directional selection across West Eurasia [pdf]

#54

Post by svnt »

kloop wrote: post #32
svnt wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t had time to really dig in to the paper but these data (from only one region) are limited in their ability to compare regions, right? If anything they seem to support homogenization of intellectual capacity/mental health in Eurasia since 2kya. The methodology, if it holds up, seems to hold a lot of promise for answering questions like this in the future.

No, this paper doesn't seem to talk about regional differences. The implication seems to be that it wouldn't be surprising to find differences between groups that separated more than 2kya, as there was active changes going on before that time. Not that it predicts any specific differences > If anything they seem to support homogenization of intellectual capacity/mental health in Eurasia since 2kya. I would be interes…

I meant West Eurasia, I agree it doesn’t seem to support any broader conclusion.

Re: Ancient DNA reveals pervasive directional selection across West Eurasia [pdf]

#55

Post by JuniperMesos »

lukev wrote: post #15
shadowtree wrote: post #3

Blank Slate hypothesis is now officially refuted, correct? Different evolutionary paths between races/regions, with impact on mental health and cognitive performance.

To be clear: most people who are keen on making such an argument, or who are identifying racial genetic differences as the primary takeaway of studies like this, are doing so to justify racism, either implicitly or explicitly. But that's a strawman. Racism is wrong, even if there are minor genetic variances across populations (which... seems obvious?) Variance within a population strongly dominates the weak cross-pop…

The actual reason this matters is because of the implications it has for race-based affirmative action programs in cognitively-demanding fields; i.e. "why are there visibly no black people and lots of Asians in this advanced math class, and what should we do to fix the problem?"

There is no political agreement on whether having or not having affirmative action programs is racist (or against which racial groups).

Re: Ancient DNA reveals pervasive directional selection across West Eurasia [pdf]

#56

Post by JuniperMesos »

convolvatron wrote: post #53
timmg wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it seems like you are simultaneously arguing for a science that holds itself outside public opinion, and one that is beholden to it. Apologies if I did a bad job explaining my opinion. But I was attempting to argue the exact opposite of that. My view is that science should be the search for truth. And that if the truth is inconvenient for some political (or other) reason, so bet it. The truth is the goal. Full stop…

so, because science as whole is not pursuing the idea that people with different genetics as a population are inferior in some ways to others with sufficient vigor, that we should expect a justifiable general distrust of science including completely unrelated results like global warming. I don't see how this is prescriptive in any way, except maybe to ... I guess find scientists that are will to accepting funding for…

Unironically yes. Because it means that scientists are willing to lie or suppress results that offend their moral and poltical sensitbilities, and this should affect your credence in literally any scientific result reported by the institutional scientific research system.

Re: Ancient DNA reveals pervasive directional selection across West Eurasia [pdf]

#57

Post by suzzer99 »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #56
convolvatron wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so, because science as whole is not pursuing the idea that people with different genetics as a population are inferior in some ways to others with sufficient vigor, that we should expect a justifiable general distrust of science including completely unrelated results like global warming. I don't see how this is prescriptive in any way, except maybe to ... I guess find scientists that are will to accepting funding for…

Unironically yes. Because it means that scientists are willing to lie or suppress results that offend their moral and poltical sensitbilities, and this should affect your credence in literally any scientific result reported by the institutional scientific research system.

It doesn't necessarily mean they lie or suppress results, it can just mean they don't pursue areas of study where the outcome is either a) nothing happens or b) bad actors use your results to "other" a whole group of people. What good can come from yet another study on race and IQ? Be specific.

Just saying, "We should do science for science's sake" is not enough. We've done that. Go read The Bell Curve and knock yourself out. What people like you seem to want is continued, motivated hammering of the issue.

Re: Ancient DNA reveals pervasive directional selection across West Eurasia [pdf]

#58

Post by kstenerud »

timmg wrote: post #41
kstenerud wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very nice to believe in a pure system that exists outside of politics, but that's simply not how the world works, and it never will be. There is no scientific breakthrough that has occurred sans politics. Politics choose the winners and the losers, and the realm is science is no exception. All science is political, because the scientific institutions are made up of people, who are political. Your research projec…

As I said to another person on this thread: if scientists let their political views override their pursuit of truth, the public will (rightly) lose faith in science. So when you tell them to "trust the science" -- be it vaccinations, climate change or something else -- they have no reason to trust that science.

People don't have faith in inanimate things like science. They have faith in their leaders, who then lead the way in what to believe.

If those leaders believe in the integrity of the scientific institutions, their flock will follow. If they're anti-vax, their flock will follow. If they believe in some medical quackery, their flock will follow. If they believe in eugenics, their flock will follow. It's happened before.

What was fringe yesterday can become mainstream today, with the right leaders.

Re: Ancient DNA reveals pervasive directional selection across West Eurasia [pdf]

#59

Post by e40 »

rossdavidh wrote: post #30

One of the authors of this paper, David Reich, has written a book called "Who We Are and How We Got Here", which is worth reading. My thoughts on it: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2605841954

Create an account to read? No thanks.

Re: Ancient DNA reveals pervasive directional selection across West Eurasia [pdf]

#60

Post by bcjdjsndon »

pegasus wrote: post #38
bcjdjsndon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if it survives it's fit, if it's fit it survives? The old tautology

Evolution is survival of the fittest. That's not a tautology, it actually says something, namely that the traits which survive and thus propagate tend to be the ones that enable some form of adaptation to its living conditions to the individual. The paper lists a bunch of examples: - lactose tolerance - immunity and disease resistance - lighter skin at northern latitudes - metabolism and vitamin D processing changes…

> All these traits go beyond just increasing the odds of survival, they improve the life of the individual directly. I.e. they confer fitness.

Wrong. Fitness is not "beyond" increasing the odds of survival, fitness is ONLY that. Fitness is not about quality of life.

- in that ecosystem they are inhabiting, be more healthy than those who don't.

Survival of the fittest says nothing about how healthy they are, only whether they survive and reproduce or not.

So it should really be "If it survives it must have been fit"

Post reply on HN