Hacker News Reader

Comment by awkward | Hacker News Reader

The obvious pull quote, already in this thread, seems to say that this is a case of looking where we have the tools to look rather than where it makes a difference. Because you can get DNA with a swab and a MiSeq, you should try to determine the causes there rather than do the hard work of determining confounding environmental factors.

The end argument works out to laziness if the goal is to determine causes. If the goal is engineering change, the article makes it's own countercase - improvements to society-wide resources make for society-wide changes in behavior.

View on HN

Why I don't find many of these types of articles interesting isn't because of the supposedly provocative genetic part, but of the glossed over results. They look at something like grades and then try to find a link between those grades and genetics. Eventually they do and conclude that there is a link between genetics and grades. But they don't consider if those genetics or grades are important in themselves. Which is why these sort of studies tends to not survive real comparisons e.g. between groups with different norms.

Even so I think the largest flaw tend to be in the final conclusion. Which is essentially always about how we should treat less fortune people. They day such an article conclude that we need to shut down private schools and make sure we don't have genetically challanged CEOs I will give them points for being provocative.

The end argument works out to laziness if the goal is to determine causes.

If your argument is that it must be so for reasons of ideological aesthetics, then you're in the company of Lysenko.

If the goal is engineering change, the article makes it's own countercase - improvements to society-wide resources make for society-wide changes in behavior.

If the culture would broadly accept that both nature and nurture contribute something, we'd be much better able to deal with a ground truth which is complex and nuanced.

Biology is one of those areas where ground truth tends to be complex and nuanced. Psychology is another field like this. The practice of good governance is yet another.

It would help if would-be popularizers of the "nature" factor could get basic concepts straight, like (in Plomin's case) the difference between correlation and causation, or (in Plomin's pop-sci advocates' case) the meaning of "heritability".

These are general problems in the interpretation of science, and their presence isn't exclusive to the political left or right. (The one exception I can make out being Climate Change.)

"Left" or "right"? I'm talking about the "nature" versus "nurture" debate in human behavior and performance.

It shouldn't be a debate. It should be a "knob" we're tuning in. In general, the Left has had an ideological stake in "nurture." Various progressive utopian visions had such an ideological stake, communism being the most obvious one. Intersectionality and Feminism have taken up the nurture baton, as they have an ideological stake in forwarding nurture and denying any significant role for nature.

Again, in a field like biology, many of the answers are going to be complex and nuanced. Black and white binaries mandated by ideology are not going to be the likeliest answers.

It... clearly is a debate? Like, a fundamental and unanswered question spanning many scientific fields? That’s interesting to me. The political valences you choose to assign to each side of the debate: not so much.

It... clearly is a debate?

In as much as Climate Change is a debate. Which is to say, it isn't, except for ideological wishful thinking. It's settled science that both nature and nurture are involved in human behavior to some extent. It's only a question as to how much, with a lot of noise generated in popular accounts motivated by ideology.

The political valences you choose to assign to each side of the debate: not so much.

Skewing of politics to the left or right in a given field can cause systemic bias. Both conservative and more open voices need to be heard to avoid groupthink causing the social environments within each field from going off the rails.

You and I have already had discussions about how fields can engage in such behaviors to produce artificial exclusivity and act in ways contrary to facts and their own and society's self interests.

I think you're pretty much begging the question now, aren't you? "There's no debate except HOW MUCH genes influence behavior". Well, we pretty much all agree that Downs Syndrome exists, so I think we knew going into this thread that there was some genetic component.

I'm just not interested in your politics, sorry.

Well, we pretty much all agree that Downs Syndrome exists, so I think we knew going into this thread that there was some genetic component.

It's not begging the question, if you're going to concede the point that it's not a question of if, but how much. Are you also in denial of genetic, epigenetic, and in-utero biological factors affecting behavior in large mammals and highly intelligent animals? I should hope not. Are you in denial of biological factors affecting social organization behaviors in such animals? Are you asking for a special exception to all the above for Homo sapiens for reasons of ideology? In that case, I'm not the one begging the question here.

I'm just not interested in your politics, sorry.

If you're politicizing science, then you are interested in such politics. So is your position now that the effect is nonzero, but it can't be much larger because of ideological/aesthetic reasons?

What I'm asking for is less politicization of science. Science has gotten politicized in the US and much of the west, to the point where people can be un-personed for wrongthink. Ideas should be tested and bad ideas should be debunked. Suppressing words and ideas for the sake of feelings is the real danger. Incitement and other real harms are ultimately fueled by strong feelings combined with de-personalization, not by cold rationality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com