Hacker News Reader

Comment by cliveowen | Hacker News Reader

I completely agree with the adviser, everyone who denies genetics plays a major role in academic performance/learning is living in denial. I've seen it many times, people that with no effort whatsoever manage to solve complex problems that require hours of hard work for most people. We need to accept our genetic limits and act accordingly.

View on HN

> We need to accept our genetic limits and act accordingly.

This statement reminds me a lot of the movie Gattaca.

One should never discount the importance of ambition, work ethic and passion.

First of all thank you for bringing up the movie, I've seen it as a kid and I've been wondering ever since what was the title, since I only remembered bits. This movie has literally been bugging me for years, now I can finally see it again.

That said, ambition, work ethic and passion are also important, but they're a product of genetics too.

Take two guys, one is smart and spends his days trying to solve complex problems, while the second one is just as smart but spends his days on Netflix. What's the difference between the two? Mostly dedication, but what provides the former with it? Yep, genetics.

Ambition, work ethic and passion for me has nothing to do with genetics. And everything to do with upbringing.

If you are angry with the world there is a good chance you will work hard to change it.

I think we could come up with infinite factors that determine a given definition of success, that apparently aren't linked to genetics, but I also think for every such argument there's another one that bring genetics into question.

For example you mentioned upbringing. So now image the two kids above are raised by the same family, with the same values; they're equally smart, maybe they're even equally dedicated but one of the two lacks ambition/passion and doesn't live up to his brother's success. Why's that? Again, maybe the brother has his brain wired to be ambitious and has a knack (read passion) for whatever he does that lets him be successful.

I think both extremes are bad. Ignoring genetics would be wishful thinking but ascribing things like dedication to genetics? We already know how strongly nurture affects motivation, work habits, self-control etc. Even genetic potential for intelligence can be fostered or inhabited by (lack of) nurture.

Read my other answer to threeseed, who brought up a similar point.

Things like "ambition" and "drive" are often a product of intelligence.

It is the ability to project your mind into the future and see how the picture is affected by actions you take in the present.

So how do you know it's genetics? (Short answer you cannot know ...) I also know people who outperform others and solve complex problems effortlessly, yet talking with these "gifted" people I mostly recognized that they had an inherent interest in the problem area and had done a substantial amount of self-study.

It makes me sad to read such a comment on hacker news. You seem quite convinced by your answer, do you have any proof to back it up? Is is just your perception? If so how do you know that it's genetics and no cultural traits or the way they were raised by their family etc.?

As with the answers above I see that the divergence in opinions is actually due to a different understanding of the word genetics. To me genetics refers to whichever properties or features a given person has that make him of her different from anyone else.

"these "gifted" people I mostly recognized that they had an inherent interest in the problem area and had done a substantial amount of self-study."

What decides what a given person is interested in? Genetics. What grants a person the kind of introspection needed to perform "a substantial amount of self-study"? also genetics.

Genetics decides your height, weight, the fact that you believe in God or not, your interests, amount dedication, attention span and every other aspect that makes up whatever form of success you have in mind.

again you make it very easy ... (sorry I have the feeling you are trolling me ...)

"What decides what a given person is interested in? Genetics."

Really, so it's genetics that determines if I'm interested in Computer Science or any other topic? I highly doubt that ... In my case I believe it has more to do with very gifted teachers I had the luck of meeting that spawned my interest. You believe you can tell the interest of people by looking at their genes? (There several examples of twins with the same genetic material who show complementary interests, talents etc.).

So genetics determines your weight ... tell that to the people living in the 3rd world. There way also environmental influences that determine your life and at least for me the ruling is still out how much is in the genes and how much is due to the environment. You know that our environment/food etc. can change our genes ...

I'm not trolling at all, I'm serious and I don't understand how all of you can deny what I'm saying. I'm not proposing a theory I'm just laying out verifiable facts.

First of all, there exist people with similar genetics, like twins, but there aren't two people exactly identical, biologically speaking. We call people individuals because everyone is unique. Take actors Shawn Ashmore and Aaron Ashmore: the former is 1.83m the twin is 1.80m. Why can you accept that kind of difference in height but you can't accept that kind of difference (or higher) in any other trait? Like intelligence.

The last point you make is rather moot. There's no doubt nutrition impacts weight as well as general development in a living being, but given that changes spawned by biological processes are immutable and directly related to one's genetic makeup (think immune system or metabolism) those too have to be put on the same level as genetic mutations.

If you know scientific process you should know that there are no verifiable facts. We can just be a little less "wrong" than the people before us ;)

No, I don't deny the influence of genetics on intelligence and the like, however I don't believe that it outweighs teaching. (I had the experience when our math class was way advanced compared and our A-level was easy due to the teaching methods of a very talented and engaged math teacher ...). There are tons of other examples, if you give an average person with average IQ the breathing room and spark their interest they can become an expert in any field (that's what I believe ...). They might not become a Goedel or Turing, yet that's something else ...

Do you say that it's in our genes if we understand a particular subject (e.g. algebra, differential equations ...) or not?

If you don't receive any formal training in anything or get the wrong teaching, sorry than genetics won't help you. The type of training and teaching are more important than your genetics when it comes to contributions to the sciences (assuming no disabilities). I've seen this over and over ... at elementary school, high school and university.

There are studies that show that the IQ of a child for example is to 1/4 determined by their family environment and deteriorates rapidly with social risk factors. e.g. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993....

The problem is that intelligence is a bit more complicated than you want it to be ;) (and maybe that your genes are not made out to understand what I'm trying to say :D

"Genetics decides your height, weight, the fact that you believe in God or not, your interests, amount dedication, attention span and every other aspect that makes up whatever form of success you have in mind."

Does any rational person actually believe this?

How could you argue otherwise? Who we are and what we do is a product of our genetic material. Your potential, your limits, that's decided by your genes. That is undeniable.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You might want to check with a biology professor or, even better, a geneticist. You might find out you were wrong all along.

I know it's hard to accept the fact that we're biologically limited in our capabilities and people have a knee-jerk reaction when put in front of their own boundaries, but that doesn't make you right, and it sure as hell doesn't change the impact of genes on our lives or the meaning of words.

And it surely doesn't stop you from making patently absurd pronouncements.

"Impact" and "decided by" imply very different concepts.

I don't know what your academic studies are, but you're showing a profound illiteracy in even the most basic concepts of biology. The real problem here lies in the complete misunderstanding of biology and related terms by people, fuelled by flawed media depictions.

thanks ... I thought it was just me and thought that maybe my genes prohibit understanding what he's trying to say ;)

"We need to accept our genetic limits and act accordingly."

Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "act accordingly"? People who favour genetics as a means of shaping educational provision should be honest enough to actually spell out the consequences of pre-judging a person's intelligence on genetic grounds. It's pretty obvious to me what the (horrendous and appalling) consequences would be of categorising whole classes of people into superior or inferior intellect.

What I mean, is that every person should be trained to reach their particular potential, and the key word here is particular, because we're not an homogeneous mass of being that can be trained in the same way and accomplish the same goals. If you see that kid kid isn't a math whiz you don't put him in an advanced calculus class, that would just waste their time, just as the math whiz wouldn't benefit from biology class. This kind of attitude actually serves another, more important, purpose: kids aren't drove on the brink of depression from pushy parents/teachers when they keep failing at something. If everyone is aware of the kids limits the kids won't have to live up to impossibly to be met expectations.

But how do you know that it was genetics and not some other factor that has led people like that to be like that? Or maybe a combination of things?

This is basically the old nature vs. nurture thing. So the answer is similar - twin studies etc. Based on what I know (which is not much - I do not claim to be an expert) I would say that there is undeniable evidence that IQ is in fact strongly affected by genetics.

the question is also how much you rely on IQ as a measure. I found regarding nature vs. nurture, both camps have some good arguments ..

btw, I found the wikipedia article on the topic interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

Reply on news.ycombinator.com