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

511–520 of 756 posts

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#511

Post by yadaeno »

1980phipsi wrote: post #499
yadaeno wrote: post #461

IQ is misunderstood by most people and the common misconceptions are extremely harmful. In reality IQ matters much less than people think. The top 5 rated chess player of all time (Hikaru Nakamura) has a ~105 IQ. People with an average IQ are capable of performing at the 0.1% level with the proper structured training and time. In my experience IQ mostly impacts the rate at which you learn things. So it took you 2 yea…

IQ matters less than people think at some things, like chess. However, it does matter for other things, like mathematical analysis. Moreover, there is a correlation between IQ or proxies of IQ (like test scores) and income. While it isn't a super-strong relationship, there are few other variables that have as strong an impact.

Have you studied chess at an advanced level (1500+ elo)? Your assertion makes me seriously doubt that you have.

And like I said, it's pretty hard to deny IQ is a proxy for learning rate (which is extremely beneficial practically). But it is not the deciding factor in human potential.

There are much more impactful and practically easy improve environmental factors like culture, school system, diet, parenting that are a much more fruitful place to focus our effort.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#512

Post by concordDance »

ggggtez wrote: post #234

I disagree with the premise of the article. It's attacking a straw man. Progressives believe that genetics matter. It's just that they believe other things matter more (such as fairness, equality, etc). The problem is that these research studies tend to narrowly focus on trying to prove that white people are superior. Why? What is this the only question that interests such supposedly academic individuals? It's becaus…

> The problem is that these research studies tend to narrowly focus on trying to prove that white people are superior.

Where did you get this impression?

Bare in mind that the studies you hear about are the ones that generated some controversy.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#513

Post by everdrive »

tomp wrote: post #438
blast wrote: post #293

Chomsky wrote the definitive progressive answer to all this 50 years ago: https://libcom.org/files/chomsky%20-%20iq%20building%20block... Still timely and fresh, especially considering that he was critiquing Herrnstein 20 years before The Bell Curve. Because he's smart and unafraid, either of science or the truth, Chomsky never denies the possibility of a genetic component to IQ, even IQ/race. What he denies are the…

The research definitely is significant - definitely politically, if not scientifically (which I'd argue it is, any research that helps find the truth / predict the future / create a better model of the world is scientifically significant ). We're currently in the middle of several highly emotional political debates, which would easily be resolved by having better/more scientific data, particularly into the correlatio…

It's quite painful then that people are obsessed with measuring group differences with the only possible explanation being bigotry. If people ignored identity groups and studied individuals, we might not be in such a political mess.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#514

Post by PeterisP »

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…

Looking at your observation that "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." I would not be so sure that the fact that nowadays 99% of everyone can learn proves that this historical observation was mistaken.

It's known that intelligence can be significantly negatively affected by environmental factors like malnutrition (both of child and mother during pregnancy), childhood disease, pollution and injury, and there is some evidence (also mentioned in the article we're discussing) that a century or two ago the average person was significantly dumber than now, presumably because of those factors - especially to the poor and women, which often experienced more severe childhood malnutrition than their male siblings.

So it would seem plausible that a hundred years ago a nontrivial percentage of people actually were too dumb to succeed in literacy and perhaps the fix for that wasn't just starting young enough and putting effort in, but rather that we started getting much fewer kids with severe environmental damage to their intelligence.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#515

Post by everdrive »

RubberbandSoul wrote: post #486
cm2187 wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the argument Chomsky makes about the fact that this research would have no purpose in a society that treats people as individuals, ie not a racist society, is certainly valid, but the current progressivism is to do the opposite, ie to define people by their race/sex, and to count the number of people of each race or sex in organisations, and to call racism/sexism if it is not exactly the population distri…

I wonder if a society that treats people as individuals is even possible? To me that sounds like reasoning along the lines of the physics professors answer: "First, let's assume that all cows are spherical..." Not always a useful assumption. Generalizations are necessary for a human to function. Something like 90% of all daily activities are repetition and you would become psychotic if you tried to make a conscious e…

We could definitely do a better job than we're doing right now, even if the ideal is out of reach. Shoot for the stars, and hit the moon, as they say.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#517

Post by HKH2 »

Applejinx wrote: post #467

The problem here is not study of genetics, but the tacit assumption that society must be constructed for the elevation of whatever the 'best' is, and the suppression and destruction of the 'worst'. The rest is just where you place the line, and if you grant that, you are establishing the threshold for genocide. Things would be a bit simpler if the argument wasn't 'never talk about any differences among people', but '…

Curtis Yarvin makes an argument very similar to that. I can't find where I read it though.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#518

Post by cm2187 »

everdrive wrote: post #515
RubberbandSoul wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if a society that treats people as individuals is even possible? To me that sounds like reasoning along the lines of the physics professors answer: "First, let's assume that all cows are spherical..." Not always a useful assumption. Generalizations are necessary for a human to function. Something like 90% of all daily activities are repetition and you would become psychotic if you tried to make a conscious e…

We could definitely do a better job than we're doing right now, even if the ideal is out of reach. Shoot for the stars, and hit the moon, as they say.

Except the stars are millions of light-years away from the moon. I don't think we are that far from a race neutral society, despite the last year of political slogans.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#519

Post by syops »

sokoloff wrote: post #419
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’ve taught mathematics at community colleges for over 20 years and I’m absolutely convinced that not all people can learn algebra or calculus. That a well-informed position believes that not (almost) everyone who is attending a college can learn single-variable algebra is fairly depressing.

Do you believe everyone can learn algebra? What evidence do you have for this belief? Have you taught in the classroom much to students with a wide range of educational backgrounds?

I don’t believe everyone has equal intellectual talent in all areas. My talent for math far exceeds my talent for physics. I’ve tried to learn physics but I just can’t. I have no intuition for it. There is variation amongst our brains and how the connections in our brains formed in childhood. In some people the wiring is such that learning a given topic is not feasible. Such is my belief.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#520

Post by someguy321 »

everdrive wrote: post #513
tomp wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The research definitely is significant - definitely politically, if not scientifically (which I'd argue it is, any research that helps find the truth / predict the future / create a better model of the world is scientifically significant ). We're currently in the middle of several highly emotional political debates, which would easily be resolved by having better/more scientific data, particularly into the correlatio…

It's quite painful then that people are obsessed with measuring group differences with the only possible explanation being bigotry. If people ignored identity groups and studied individuals, we might not be in such a political mess.

If outcomes between groups are different, investigation into underlying causes of differences in group outcomes is often useful- bigotry need not be a motivation.
Post reply on HN