Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03171-6

Just something out of the ordinary that we don't normally talk about. This kind of stuff has been on my mind since I read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. The article is reviewing some research on genetics and social traits.

So far researchers can only find genetic factors that explain a small percentage of the variation in traits like educational attainment, but it also appears to be true that progressively larger sample sizes reveal a progressively larger set of SNPs that contribute even larger percentages. That makes it plausible that you could find a large number of SNPs that all together make a very large contribution to social status and we just can't get sample sizes large enough to pick them out from the millions of SNPs in the human genome.

The interesting thing about all of this is that it undercuts the idea of the right that personal responsibility and people's choices determine where they fit in a country's hierarchy and the left's idea that we're malleable from our environment and from society. What would the policy implications be? Does it make a strong case for a better welfare state? Is it something that shouldn't be researched at all?

Obviously it's not an either/or proposition and innate abilities and environment can both matter, but that doesn't mean one can matter a lot more than the other.

Pwns wrote:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03171-6

Just something out of the ordinary that we don't normally talk about. This kind of stuff has been on my mind since I read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. The article is reviewing some research on genetics and social traits.

So far researchers can only find genetic factors that explain a small percentage of the variation in traits like educational attainment, but it also appears to be true that progressively larger sample sizes reveal a progressively larger set of SNPs that contribute even larger percentages. That makes it plausible that you could find a large number of SNPs that all together make a very large contribution to social status and we just can't get sample sizes large enough to pick them out from the millions of SNPs in the human genome.

The interesting thing about all of this is that it undercuts the idea of the right that personal responsibility and people's choices determine where they fit in a country's hierarchy and the left's idea that we're malleable from our environment and from society. What would the policy implications be? Does it make a strong case for a better welfare state? Is it something that shouldn't be researched at all?

Obviously it's not an either/or proposition and innate abilities and environment can both matter, but that doesn't mean one can matter a lot more than the other.

Andrew Yang and Sam Harris discussed this in their podcast about 6 months ago...



The world is not ready for this information

Chizzang wrote:

Pwns wrote:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03171-6

Just something out of the ordinary that we don't normally talk about. This kind of stuff has been on my mind since I read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. The article is reviewing some research on genetics and social traits.

So far researchers can only find genetic factors that explain a small percentage of the variation in traits like educational attainment, but it also appears to be true that progressively larger sample sizes reveal a progressively larger set of SNPs that contribute even larger percentages. That makes it plausible that you could find a large number of SNPs that all together make a very large contribution to social status and we just can't get sample sizes large enough to pick them out from the millions of SNPs in the human genome.

The interesting thing about all of this is that it undercuts the idea of the right that personal responsibility and people's choices determine where they fit in a country's hierarchy and the left's idea that we're malleable from our environment and from society. What would the policy implications be? Does it make a strong case for a better welfare state? Is it something that shouldn't be researched at all?

Obviously it's not an either/or proposition and innate abilities and environment can both matter, but that doesn't mean one can matter a lot more than the other.

Andrew Yang and Sam Harris discussed this in their podcast about 6 months ago...



The world is not ready for this information

That’s your god, Cleets: Sam Harris.

He is your Baal.

Ivytalk wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Andrew Yang and Sam Harris discussed this in their podcast about 6 months ago...



The world is not ready for this information

That’s your god, Cleets: Sam Harris.

He is your Baal.

I agree with about 80% of his stuff...
which is about 30% more than I agree with anybody

if that makes him my god - I'm fine with that

Pwns wrote:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03171-6

Just something out of the ordinary that we don't normally talk about. This kind of stuff has been on my mind since I read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. The article is reviewing some research on genetics and social traits.

So far researchers can only find genetic factors that explain a small percentage of the variation in traits like educational attainment, but it also appears to be true that progressively larger sample sizes reveal a progressively larger set of SNPs that contribute even larger percentages. That makes it plausible that you could find a large number of SNPs that all together make a very large contribution to social status and we just can't get sample sizes large enough to pick them out from the millions of SNPs in the human genome.

The interesting thing about all of this is that it undercuts the idea of the right that personal responsibility and people's choices determine where they fit in a country's hierarchy and the left's idea that we're malleable from our environment and from society. What would the policy implications be? Does it make a strong case for a better welfare state? Is it something that shouldn't be researched at all?

Obviously it's not an either/or proposition and innate abilities and environment can both matter, but that doesn't mean one can matter a lot more than the other.

I think your family dynamic and personal environment you place yourself in, coupled with your personal choices and personal responsibility, determine where you fit in the country’s hierarchy.

Chizzang wrote:

Pwns wrote:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03171-6

Just something out of the ordinary that we don't normally talk about. This kind of stuff has been on my mind since I read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. The article is reviewing some research on genetics and social traits.

So far researchers can only find genetic factors that explain a small percentage of the variation in traits like educational attainment, but it also appears to be true that progressively larger sample sizes reveal a progressively larger set of SNPs that contribute even larger percentages. That makes it plausible that you could find a large number of SNPs that all together make a very large contribution to social status and we just can't get sample sizes large enough to pick them out from the millions of SNPs in the human genome.

The interesting thing about all of this is that it undercuts the idea of the right that personal responsibility and people's choices determine where they fit in a country's hierarchy and the left's idea that we're malleable from our environment and from society. What would the policy implications be? Does it make a strong case for a better welfare state? Is it something that shouldn't be researched at all?

Obviously it's not an either/or proposition and innate abilities and environment can both matter, but that doesn't mean one can matter a lot more than the other.

Andrew Yang and Sam Harris discussed this in their podcast about 6 months ago...



The world is not ready for this information

Genetics absolutely play a role in behavior. That is a no brainer. For example, male behavior is different from female behavior in several genetically influenced ways.

But here's how this is going to play out - scientific grant money is how you drive research in these things... and Congress is never going to approve research grants for what will be labeled as Nazi eugenics by its opponents. And guess who will be these oppoenents? The "Party of Science".

I would suggest that if scientists want to explore this avenue that they research straight Scots Irish males only, and then study differentiation within that group only. Then, 100 years from now when China dictates what can and cannot be studied, they can build upon that research by expanding it out into other genetic groups.

I do not find this to be remarkable. To me it's newer technology verifying what should have been expected based on inferences associated with older approaches. In the "nature vs. nurture" discussion, there has always been a bias against the "nature" side. But I think anyone who was truly objective knew decades ago that the "nature" side is a lot bigger factor than many people would like to believe.

At the same time, as the article points out, these are associations so one has to be cautious about reaching cause and effect conclusions.

There's another interesting thing about this sort of thing that I read about in The Bell Curve back in the 1990s. The idea is this:

There is variation due to genetics and variation due to environment. As we reduce variation due to the environment, the proportion of variation in outcomes that is due to genetics will increase.

JohnStOnge wrote:I do not find this to be remarkable. To me it's newer technology verifying what should have been expected based on inferences associated with older approaches. In the "nature vs. nurture" discussion, there has always been a bias against the "nature" side. But I think anyone who was truly objective knew decades ago that the "nature" side is a lot bigger factor than many people would like to believe.

At the same time, as the article points out, these are associations so one has to be cautious about reaching cause and effect conclusions.

There's another interesting thing about this sort of thing that I read about in The Bell Curve back in the 1990s. The idea is this:

There is variation due to genetics and variation due to environment. As we reduce variation due to the environment, the proportion of variation in outcomes that is due to genetics will increase.

John, didn't you get the memo?

Quoting The Bell Curve puts you squarely in the Nazi Party.

"....a scabrous piece of racial pornography masquerading as serious scholarship." - Bob Herbert, NYT

This is what Clitz meant when he said we are not ready for this.