3 ms·

You are using a definition of genetic causation that is not used by anyone in the field of genetics. It sounds like your definition is "Is there any hypothetic

You are using a definition of genetic causation that is not used by anyone in the field of genetics. It sounds like your definition is "Is there any hypothetical environment where the phenotypic expression of a gene could be changed?" The answer is almost always yes. Growth hormone influences height, imagine a world where everyone's level of growth hormone is regulated. Suddenly all of these growth hormone influencing genes no longer have any effect on height. By your definition growth hormone does not genetically cause height because of this hypothetical. You could see how using a definition is both incredibly restrictive as well as almost impossible to measure, and therefore not a very useful definition.

thraway180306 8y ago
May that be because this isn't field of genetics at all, but unrelated one called "behavioural genetics" (using quantitative methods of the social sciences, with similar levels of signal, and none of the certainty of actual genetics) wherein Turkheimer formulated the so called "three laws" not unaligned with GP's point?
frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
>You are using a definition of genetic causation that is not used by anyone in the field of genetics. That's worrying. >It sounds like your definition is "Is there any hypothetical environment where the phenotypic expression of a gene could be changed?" The answer is almost always yes. Sure but we don't even need a hypothetical environment where high school basketball practice is state-mandated, we just need any hypothetical environment where John and Jim both go to basketball practice and their genes stay the same to see that what is labeled as genetic causation is actually environmental. I mean are you telling me the entire field has no way to distinguish a skill->environment->skill feedback effect from a genes->skill effect? I'd say that genes seem essentialist, they're something that defines you and can't be changed but environment isn't that way, it's malleable and can be changed. So take this example, we're gonna say at least 11% of IQ is genetic, right? But if we pass some laws so that we have better teachers and smaller class sizes and better remedial programs then what IQ is only 8% genetic? Or even in the case that the laws help the top more and IQ expands to 14% genetic. In that case it doesn't seem that our measurements of genetics effects were accurately measuring the genetics at all, just environmental effects that are hard to account for. >You could see how using a definition is both incredibly restrictive as well as almost impossible to measure, and therefore not a very useful definition. Yes, I agree that what I'm saying would make genetic causation very difficult to measure. But it's also the truth about what genetic causation is. Instead we're just opting for what is easy to measure and labeling it as the thing that is hard to measure. That's not right.
- JamesBarney 8y ago
  Maybe if you gave some examples that would help. Can you describe how you would even hypothetically measure your definition of "genetic causation"? Could you give an example of a "gene causing" the expression of an interesting trait in a way that is immune to environmental changes? You're looking for a gene that causes an outcome completely independently of all environments. I don't think this exists for any interesting traits. Not to mention how much effect a change has on a given trait is dependent on the genetic make up of the population. > But it's also the truth about what genetic causation is. No it's not, everyone who talks about genetic causation seriously use a different definition. I don't know why your own personal definition is better than the definition used by every single person who studies genetics.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
    I would ditch the idea of widespread genetic correlations on complex traits, switch to a method that describes what genes (and their interactions) actually do to the human body. For example, this specific gene does x to a neurotransmitter which can interact with y or z to cause changes like this or that. (And I know it's actually more complicated than just a straight mapping of gene X -> trait Y.) With my method you can still say that no matter the environment gene x does this thing which can interact with gene y or gene z or environmental factors a, b, c in certain ways. I think that proving intelligence is XX% genetic is basically meaningless since we can't actually remove environmental effects and if I'm really honest I think it's popularity in the culture is usually driven by spurious motives. >No it's not, everyone who talks about genetic causation seriously use a different definition. I don't know why your own personal definition is better than the definition used by every single person who studies genetics. Why do you think this is at the top of Hacker News? Because people's common understanding of a title like: New study shows that IQ is 11% genetic Is that at least 11% of their intelligence comes straight from their DNA, not that actually we could change 11% to 5% or 8% or 17% or most any number we want just by changing some laws or fortifying food or any number of environmental changes. The popularity of genetics research in popular media requires this bait-and-switch about what is actually being (mis) measured.

thraway180306 8y ago

May that be because this isn't field of genetics at all, but unrelated one called "behavioural genetics" (using quantitative methods of the social sciences, with similar levels of signal, and none of the certainty of actual genetics) wherein Turkheimer formulated the so called "three laws" not unaligned with GP's point?

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago

>You are using a definition of genetic causation that is not used by anyone in the field of genetics. That's worrying. >It sounds like your definition is "Is there any hypothetical environment where the phenotypic expression of a gene could be changed?" The answer is almost always yes. Sure but we don't even need a hypothetical environment where high school basketball practice is state-mandated, we just need any hypothetical environment where John and Jim both go to basketball practice and their genes stay the same to see that what is labeled as genetic causation is actually environmental. I mean are you telling me the entire field has no way to distinguish a skill->environment->skill feedback effect from a genes->skill effect? I'd say that genes seem essentialist, they're something that defines you and can't be changed but environment isn't that way, it's malleable and can be changed. So take this example, we're gonna say at least 11% of IQ is genetic, right? But if we pass some laws so that we have better teachers and smaller class sizes and better remedial programs then what IQ is only 8% genetic? Or even in the case that the laws help the top more and IQ expands to 14% genetic. In that case it doesn't seem that our measurements of genetics effects were accurately measuring the genetics at all, just environmental effects that are hard to account for. >You could see how using a definition is both incredibly restrictive as well as almost impossible to measure, and therefore not a very useful definition. Yes, I agree that what I'm saying would make genetic causation very difficult to measure. But it's also the truth about what genetic causation is. Instead we're just opting for what is easy to measure and labeling it as the thing that is hard to measure. That's not right.

JamesBarney 8y ago
Maybe if you gave some examples that would help. Can you describe how you would even hypothetically measure your definition of "genetic causation"? Could you give an example of a "gene causing" the expression of an interesting trait in a way that is immune to environmental changes? You're looking for a gene that causes an outcome completely independently of all environments. I don't think this exists for any interesting traits. Not to mention how much effect a change has on a given trait is dependent on the genetic make up of the population. > But it's also the truth about what genetic causation is. No it's not, everyone who talks about genetic causation seriously use a different definition. I don't know why your own personal definition is better than the definition used by every single person who studies genetics.
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  I would ditch the idea of widespread genetic correlations on complex traits, switch to a method that describes what genes (and their interactions) actually do to the human body. For example, this specific gene does x to a neurotransmitter which can interact with y or z to cause changes like this or that. (And I know it's actually more complicated than just a straight mapping of gene X -> trait Y.) With my method you can still say that no matter the environment gene x does this thing which can interact with gene y or gene z or environmental factors a, b, c in certain ways. I think that proving intelligence is XX% genetic is basically meaningless since we can't actually remove environmental effects and if I'm really honest I think it's popularity in the culture is usually driven by spurious motives. >No it's not, everyone who talks about genetic causation seriously use a different definition. I don't know why your own personal definition is better than the definition used by every single person who studies genetics. Why do you think this is at the top of Hacker News? Because people's common understanding of a title like: New study shows that IQ is 11% genetic Is that at least 11% of their intelligence comes straight from their DNA, not that actually we could change 11% to 5% or 8% or 17% or most any number we want just by changing some laws or fortifying food or any number of environmental changes. The popularity of genetics research in popular media requires this bait-and-switch about what is actually being (mis) measured.