3 ms·

Page 6: The trouble, as always, is reductionism: One side saying, "This is the one-and-only reason." Page 1: it has been the long and disastrous habit to look

Page 6: The trouble, as always, is reductionism: One side saying, "This is the one-and-only reason." Page 1: it has been the long and disastrous habit to look at every variable, any variable, except the obvious ones: The differences between people. !logically_coherent

mynameishere 19y ago
No. I merely pointed out that the "differences between people" is the one factor that people refuse to examine.
- aswanson 19y ago
  But is it not your thesis that this difference is the explanatory variable, in and of itself?
  - mynameishere 19y ago
    Err, no. Every aspect of human behavior undoubtedly has 1000s of contributory factors. That's basically why the soft sciences are soft--avoiding errors in explainations is impossible because everything cannot be accounted for. But, you know, when you say, "Genetic differences count for nothing," when they are well-known to count for a tremendous amount, you're assuring a tremendous error.
    - aswanson 19y ago
      Every aspect of human behavior undoubtedly has 1000s of contributory factors Agreed, of course. Genetic differences count for nothing Of course not. We cannot account for the contributory factors nor quantify them, and we cannot quantify for the interplay between the two since there is not a 1-to-1 correspondence due to feedback effects. Nor can we accurately quantify the genetic contribution in the first place. when they are well-known to count for a tremendous amount By what amount under what circumstances for a given individual and situation?
      - mynameishere 19y ago
        Nor can we accurately quantify the genetic contribution in the first place. It depends. Some things are discrete (eg, genetic diseases like huntington's). Most things are on a continuum--there's no IQ gene, for instance. I suspect that, in a rough way, almost every non-junk aspect of the human genome has some effect on intelligence, large or small. The best tests are perhaps still separated twin studies. Identical DNA + different environments makes for a convenient way to quantify the genetic influence of characteristics... Of course, once genetic engineering is in full bloom, all of this will be quite non-controversial.
- Tichy 19y ago
  "No. I merely pointed out that the "differences between people" is the one factor that people refuse to examine." That is simply not true - exactly the opposite is the problem. Also, what differences between people would you name as accounting factors?

mynameishere 19y ago

No. I merely pointed out that the "differences between people" is the one factor that people refuse to examine.

aswanson 19y ago
But is it not your thesis that this difference is the explanatory variable, in and of itself?
- mynameishere 19y ago
  Err, no. Every aspect of human behavior undoubtedly has 1000s of contributory factors. That's basically why the soft sciences are soft--avoiding errors in explainations is impossible because everything cannot be accounted for. But, you know, when you say, "Genetic differences count for nothing," when they are well-known to count for a tremendous amount, you're assuring a tremendous error.
  - aswanson 19y ago
    Every aspect of human behavior undoubtedly has 1000s of contributory factors Agreed, of course. Genetic differences count for nothing Of course not. We cannot account for the contributory factors nor quantify them, and we cannot quantify for the interplay between the two since there is not a 1-to-1 correspondence due to feedback effects. Nor can we accurately quantify the genetic contribution in the first place. when they are well-known to count for a tremendous amount By what amount under what circumstances for a given individual and situation?
    - mynameishere 19y ago
      Nor can we accurately quantify the genetic contribution in the first place. It depends. Some things are discrete (eg, genetic diseases like huntington's). Most things are on a continuum--there's no IQ gene, for instance. I suspect that, in a rough way, almost every non-junk aspect of the human genome has some effect on intelligence, large or small. The best tests are perhaps still separated twin studies. Identical DNA + different environments makes for a convenient way to quantify the genetic influence of characteristics... Of course, once genetic engineering is in full bloom, all of this will be quite non-controversial.
Tichy 19y ago
"No. I merely pointed out that the "differences between people" is the one factor that people refuse to examine." That is simply not true - exactly the opposite is the problem. Also, what differences between people would you name as accounting factors?