Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters? • Hacker News Board

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#651

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 8:25 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #563

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…

What are the debates being resolved? Clear evidence that one group differs from another doesn't provide any useful information for dealing with individuals. Like make up a characteristic where women differ statistically from men, but have the difference be about 1/2 the standard deviation for either group. Lots of women will be closer to the average for men than the average for women, and vice versa, there's no usefu…

[deleted]

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#652

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 8:29 PM UTC

sitkack wrote: post #641

dragonwriter wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The general argument of the Bell Curve, that people from different parts of the world have wildly different distributions on many different attributes, is (or ought to be) completely non-controversial It is. None of the controversy over the book is about that orbital-level view.

If the sources are bad, how can you make any such statement about conclusions in the work? To state as fact what is and is not controversial regarding the Bell Curve, smells a bit like your Gas Light is possible not combusting properly.

> If the sources are bad, how can you make any such statement about conclusions in the work?

I’m not making any statement about the conclusions in the work.

I’m making a statement about the controversy around the work, from observing that controversy, including reading extensive material from people objecting at the time it first became controversial.

The controversy was never over the broad idea that different populations have different distributions of different attributes.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#653

Post by summm » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 8:36 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #446

concordDance wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this reveals a lot of ignorance on the huge amounts of different teaching methodologies and techniques that have risen and fallen over the last 100 years.

I have spent 15 years in the educatuonal system and I feel I am qualified to state that the methods are very obsolete. A week of playing Kerbal Space programm gave me better understanding of orbits than years studying calculus, physics, general and special relativity. It has poor applicability in everyday life - we learn all the biology of a cell but kid's don't know the difference between aspirin and ibuprophene.

Afaik Kerbal's simulation is non-relativistic, so you shouldn't have learnt anything about relativity from Kerbal...

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#654

Post by cloudfifty » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 8:58 PM UTC

bart_spoon wrote: post #613

cloudfifty wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> every instance of attempts at building socialist governments have been tied at the waist to authoritarianism Hence the fierce insistence from large parts of the socialist movement throughout history that it must be radically democratic - otherwise oppression, rather than liberation will be the result.

And yet, no such democratic socialist government ever materializes. Because all nations must allocate capital efficiently to function and resist outside hostile forces. The capitalist option is to allow people to own private property, and trust that the supply and demand of a marketplace and individuals looking out for their personal best interest will align to allocate that capital efficiently. The tradeoff is that…

Your image of socialism is so tainted by state and soviet-style socialism that I think you need to dig a bit deeper into the history of socialism before assuming so much as you do. Bertrand Russell's "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (1920!)" is a good start, even if just the introduction. Basically that it's a really clear contemporary criticism of it from other democratic socialists.

It's fascinating how uncomfortable it is for some to even acknowledge the existence of democratic minded socialists, even when we've existed as long as socialism itself (obviously).

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#655

Post by visarga » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 9:04 PM UTC

Kbelicius wrote: post #437

dash2 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be a progressive without believing that we can organize society so that value creation is rewarded with nothing but "respect" and "intrinsic satisfaction". That's Chomsky's argument. It's false.

> value creation is rewarded with nothing but "respect" and "intrinsic satisfaction". That is not a stance Chomsky holds nor the vast majority of socialist. How have you become so anti-socialist without even knowing what socialism is?

Socialism is a system where a clique of powerful people jail and abuse anyone who opposes their ways. Ostensibly it's for the good of society, but in reality it's just for the ruling class. Source: lived under socialism for 14 years. Also observe N.K.

Come to think of it, it's a woke utopia. Enforced equality, anti-meritocracy and cancellings making everyone live under constant fear.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#656

Post by threatofrain » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

rejectedandsad wrote: post #635

threatofrain wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it's easy to discuss the high school transcripts of people with university posts. How did you get in touch with this information? The gains become clear depending on the degree to which you know what you want, and especially if you're thinking about graduate programs. 1. Calculus in some sense is somewhat disorganized, and it sucks that it's a gateway to more math in the US. By finishing Calculus early y…

> I'm not sure it's easy to discuss the high school transcripts of people with university posts. How did you get in touch with this information? Because 95% of the time high school work doesn't transfer to the college level even if you do semesters at De Anza. You're back to scratch unless you go to flagship in-state, and even then you can only transfer up to a certain amount (at my undergrad it was up to Calc 2 - se…

Every university has a different agreement on how skipping reqs and credits work, but I'm really surprised that you're saying you need to go to a flagship school for Calc 2, because I believe that's normally covered just by the Calc BC AP exam.

Even if a college didn't want to transfer the credits for Calc 3, I'm surprised that they wouldn't allow you to skip the course. Also, for your friends, if they took a class at the same institution... doesn't that mean they got a repeat? Strange.

I also wouldn't generalize these things to people who occupy university posts, as they probably had interesting trajectories.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#657

Post by summm » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 9:16 PM UTC

bjourne wrote: post #578

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The analogy doesn't work as we have indeed identified genes for many biological traits. For example, whether someone is vulnerable to certain diseases. So if iq is a biological trait, like eye color or height, it is odd that we haven't yet found any iq genes.

The analogy does work: we know the specific bits that are responsible for the color of Mario's hat.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#658

Post by selimthegrim » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 9:42 PM UTC

throwaway59553 wrote: post #487

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…

>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 except for some very specific circumstances, you can defy the average. If you want to know if someone's bad at something, actually testing them is much more accurate than looking at their genetics. It does matt…

I guess you'd be saying the same about the (extant) Congolese rocket program?

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#659

Post by throwawaylinux » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

nomoreplease wrote: post #533

throwawaylinux wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe this idea because few or nobody sees a moral problem in acknowledging there is a strong genetic component to physical attractiveness, or physical features (like height) that give an advantage in "merit" in some paths of life. Nor do people have a problem acknowledging your parents, the country in which you were born, their wealth and fitness as "good parents" for the early years of your life plays a m…

Then why are the Leftist professors in the article so opposed? Why are they comparing her work to climate change denial and Holocaust denial? Why are they so opposed to the obvious logical conclusion

All people turn anti-science, anti-curious reality deniers when they feel their cultish extreme views are threatened by questions. And some turn into nasty hateful bullies.

A leftist is not immune, and a professor is certainly not immune to this.

Re: Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

#660

Post by MichaelZuo » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 9:47 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #629

MichaelZuo wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the trouble other folks are having with your prior comment was that there has never been an "Unhindered capitalism" anywhere on Earth within the last several hundred years. Religious, societal, political, etc., factors beyond, and in addition to capitalism, have always held significant sway in any society that has been realized so far.

Capitalism is to be understood as a political economy, not as some abstract economic-only concept that is impossible. A political economy is more capitalist in so far as private ownership of capital faces fewer restrictions and insofar as power is correlated to political ownership. Like all political systems, there are practical limits, but a system in which the power of capital is unrestrained and where very few res…

So by "unhindered capitalism" you mean “partially-hindered capitalism”?