15 ms·

The genetics of university success

97 points by laughingman2 8y ago

laughingman2 8y ago
This study measures academic performance in non-identical twins with identical twins as the control group. It finds a significant difference in outcomes between non-identical twins than identical twins suggesting the role of genes in academic outcomes. I am not a genetic researcher, more of a layman in this line of study. Some academics in social media (twitter) handwave and dismiss this research as inaccurate and they also feel its dangerous for such a study into genes (which might have ethical implications when applied to social policy) to be done without adequate interdisciplinary collaborations. Irrespective of their motivations, I am interested in knowing whether such criticisms hold good for this study.
- 21 8y ago
  It goes further, a Twitter verified PhD in molecular biology calls it "deeply disturbing and unacceptable": > This study is so deeply disturbing and unacceptable. Studies that link genetics to intelligence/achievement are so deeply dangerous. Yet scientists jump into them without taking into account the social context in which they're doing their work. https://twitter.com/webmz_/status/1053353974764634112 https://twitter.com/webmz_/status/1053353974764634112
  - zarkov99 8y ago
    Amazing. E pur si muove.
  - tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
    Without a more in-depth analysis of where the study goes wrong, I'm afraid I can't simply take someone's word for it merely because they have a PhD next to their name.
    - claudiawerner 8y ago
      Not that I necessarily agree with what she's saying, her comment isn't on where "the study goes wrong", but rather about the fact of the study itself. In the same way that, for instance, an evil genius can be said to have created a "good" bomb, the "good" here refers to its efficiency, the number of people it can kill, the speed at which it can be activated etc. but these qualities speak nothing of whether the bomb is a good thing - for that question you need to consult the context in which it was made, and the question is of course different and mostly irrelevant to the technical parameters of the bomb. The ethics of killing have nothing to do with how long the blade of your knife is.
      - tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
        Fair point, although I feel that your interpretation may be a bit too charitable. If she had said that the paper should take into account the possible interpretations/implications of the research, then I can understand that. However, she said that the paper itself was unacceptable. I can only conclude that she would prefer no research be done if there could be negative ethical implications.
        TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
        Actually she says the paper is bad science, and says why in her Twitter feed. She's actually calling for more research, supporting more complex narratives. Meanwhile here, we're seeing that correlation does not imply causation except when it supports common prejudices and simplistic narratives. Then it absolutely does.
        tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
        She states simply that it didn't look for proper controls or caveats. As I said in my original comment, I would need an in-depth analysis of why the study is bad. Merely mentioning controls is not enough to convince me, even if the person has a PhD. And as for her "calling for more research", that is simply not true: This is one open access article the world does not need right now. She is literally saying here that it should not have been published.
  - laughingman2 8y ago
    Yeah, I was referring to that thread. Without explicitly stating what's wrong with the study (in which many factors could go wrong), Or stating how/why environmental factors could still derail the study despite twin control, the twitter thread derails into "social responsibility" etc. I have a political bias towards the left (equality, more democratic control etc), but I would never say scientific truth should be subservient to my ideology. That kind of a view has a huge stench of the postmodernist ideology on how even science is subjective like literary criticism. Any ethical axiom is cannot be contingent on facts due to the is-ought problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem). But the moment some the moral axioms are used to make decisions in the real world, the decisions have to be consistent with the axioms. The effect of decisions is contingent on facts aka Science. So given a belief in induction, science can help inform what you "ought" to do with respect to your axioms. Contrary to the subset of people in the left who blindly believe the Blank Slate hypothesis, or fear that genetic studies will change their ethical assumptions, I argue that more knowledge (genetic, sociological etc ) through science would only help you to be more committed to you ethics by allowing you to exercise it properly. I think Steven Pinker's argument against (part of) left's obsession with blank slate rings true https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_... I think Peter Singer (of Animal Liberation fame) alludes to the same point in the Darwinian Left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Darwinian_Left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Darwinian_Left (haven't read it yet)
  - dgut 8y ago
    It's her maternal instinct kicking in. I know some female scientists who wouldn't want to hear anything about attributing differences to IQ or genes and become very emotional if the topic is ever mentioned. "I don't want to think of my friends from X as N".
    - laughingman2 8y ago
      I think by calling someone's error out as "maternal instinct" instead of arguing against it rationally, you have become the very caricature that makes their argument more valid.
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      Why not 'her social responsibility' kicking in? Because there it is, attributing 'weak' motivations to women, because of course women are all the same. This would be funny, a comment that exhibits precisely why the argument it 'refutes' is true. If it wasn't sexist and demeaning as well.
      - dgut 8y ago
        This is not social responsibility. It's an emotional reaction to a scientific study. There is nothing irresponsible about the study. Science doesn't have to care for the emotions of specific groups. Then we're doomed. And yes, neurotypical women are close to identical at the meta level I'm talking about. Same for men.
        claudiawerner 8y ago
        >Science doesn't have to care for the emotions of specific groups. Then we're doomed. What's your opinion on the idea of scientific ethics?
        ThrowawayR2 8y ago
        > What's your opinion on the idea of scientific ethics? Neither harm to the subjects of the research nor the ones conducting it is occurring, so it's unclear how scientific ethics comes into play. Are you genuinely attempting to suggests that there some truths about the universe which are so inimical to the human spirit that we dare not reveal them? If so, the quote which springs immediately to mind is PKD's "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
- thrower123 8y ago
  I feel like we must have done enough twin studies over the years at this point to conclusively say that genetic heritage is the most significant factor for a whole host of ourcomes. Environmental factors are alluring, because they offer the potential that something can be done, through toil and good works, to achieve improvements, rather than the more Calvinist tyranny of genetics.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    They are also alluring because of the fear that policies could be put in place which excludes people based on the factors that are pre-determined; this idea is offensive to both those in favor of "meritocracy" and those who believe in the equality of opportunities. It also challenges the idea of human worth, since many people (mistakenly, in my opinion) believe human worth is (or should be) tied to mental and physical abilities.
    - mmirate 8y ago
      How does > if you believe so, then you believe that human worth is predetermined constitute a challenge to > human worth should be tied to mental and physical abilities ? Is there some implicit negative value attached to the hypothesis that human worth could be predetermined? (Edit -- counterarguments are more educational/enlightening than downvotes.)
      - claudiawerner 8y ago
        >Is there some implicit negative value attached to the hypothesis that human worth could be predetermined? I think so, yes. It runs counter to the idea of a free and equal society, and necessitates setting up standards (subjective ones imposed by an authority) as to which qualities are good and which are bad; this very easily leads to narrow-minded elitism, for instance, preferring mental abilities over physical ones, or general intelligence over emotional intelligence etc. The notion of social equality is important, in my opinion.
        8y ago
- pickpuck 8y ago
  Speaking of motivations: > These findings suggest young adults select and modify their educational experiences in part based on their genetic propensities and highlight the potential for DNA-based predictions of real-world outcomes, which will continue to increase in predictive power.
  - zarkov99 8y ago
    This does not say anything about motivations, which, in any case, are irrelevant in assessing the value of the scholarship.
    - tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
      Exactly. It's either valid research or it isn't.
- liftbigweights 8y ago
  Excellent point. The study of genetics and its influence seems to be trapped between two extremes due to racial horrors of the 20th century. 100 years ago, social darwinists claimed genetics (race/blood) was everything. It was destiny. And as a result the world endured senseless horrors. As a reaction to the horrors of ww2, another extreme has taken hold - the side that claims genetics has no influence. To proclaim otherwise would make you are nazi. The more sensible and correct middle ground, that genetics isn't destiny but a major component of many contributing factors to your life and success, seems verboten in academia and the public in general. It's both obvious that genetics plays a role and it's equally obvious that environment plays a role. But due to historical baggage, scientists have to tread lightly. If michael jordan grew up in the congo, he wouldn't have been one of the greatest basketball players. If einstein grew up in iraq in the late 1800s, he wouldn't have been one of the greatest scientists. Both nature and nurture play a part in success.
- nabla9 8y ago
  What the genes that correlate with academic success mean is easy to misunderstand. Some may assume that those who succeed have 'smart' genes, but it can be that they are healthier. Just having better immune system can lead to better academic success. So can avoiding depression.
  - WalterSear 8y ago
    Why do you think that the form of the genetic advantage makes any difference? The difference is the difference.
    - justtopost 8y ago
      I think making someone healthier (protecting from a known defect in this case) is more understood, and therefore more probable and actionable than making them 'smarter'. We can't stop at treating just the symptom of injustice, without begeting our own injustice. History is bearing that out clearly. I feel, the difference is signifigant, and worthy of investigation beyond a doubt.
    - nabla9 8y ago
      One form can be potentially changed with policy, the other may not be.
paulpauper 8y ago
It's not as controversial anymore attributing differences of athletic success to genes, but academic success is still a thorny issue . My guess is there is a lot of money and jobs at stake in perpetuating a set of systems and beliefs that don't work as well as previously thought (sunk cost fallacy comes to mind).
- wycs 8y ago
  It is startling how ineffective basically all educational interventions are. I remember reading a quote to this effect in the introduction to the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: “Teaching is a skill we have not yet mastered, save for to those happy people for whom it is almost superfluous.” We have known intelligence is heritable for a long time. Anyone who has lived for a great length of time in a small town has seen this in their neighbours. We have had twin studies basically confirming it for ages; and soon cognitive genomics will confirm it beyond the smallest shadow of a doubt. It is a testament to what epistemic hacks humans are that we allowed these extreme priors to be overwhelmed by empty political fashion.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Yet there's the exceptional young man from the local solid and dependable farm family, who got a philosophy degree at Auburn, first in his line to do so. The political 'fashion' is perhaps more about not pigeonholing people by fallible means, and more about giving them a chance regardless?
    - bdndndnndndndnd 8y ago
      You have answered your own question with the word "exceptional". This individual is truly, as you say, an exception to the rule.
      - monetus 8y ago
        I fear we understand genetics only relatively better than we understand phrenology...
fallingfrog 8y ago
One thing to bear in mind is that university success depends more on being compliant to authority than intelligence, at least until you get to the grad school level, and maybe then too.
- claystu 8y ago
  How in the world does "being compliant to authority" contribute to university success? What major emphasizes compliance over learning the material and doing the work?
  - mylamename 8y ago
    I think the answer lies in your question.
  - twtw 8y ago
    In my experience: You say, "I already know this stuff, can I just take the final?" Uni says, "this is a required course for graduation, you must take it." If you don't comply or push hard enough to make Uni comply with you, you don't graduate. This is how I ended up learning all about System.out.println my final semester of university.
    - claystu 8y ago
      I don't see anything in your response about success. It's true that if you want credit for completing a major, then it is necessary for you to actually complete the major, but that still doesn't equate to graduating at or near the top of your class.
      - twtw 8y ago
        perhaps I wasn't clear. I completed all of the courses for the major, with the exception of CS101, introduction to computer programming. I took many classes that ostensibly had a prerequisite on CS101, including additional nonrequired courses that could have easily been substituted for CS101. Nonetheless, as you say, it was "necessary for [me] to actually complete the major" by going back after taking CS4xx to complete CS101. Was this a required part of the major? yes. Was it a valuable part to be required without exception? Maybe, but I tend to not think so. > I don't see anything in your response about success "Not graduating" is a pretty clear way in my mind to "not succeed." I indicated that compliance to authority in my experience was necessary for graduation, which implies that it was necessary for success, does it not? > graduating at or near the top of your class ok?
sjg007 8y ago
I mean if u have uncontrolled add, depression or anxiety your university experience will suffer. Also any other long term illness. Success at university should be a spectrum.
gdudeman 8y ago
There is an amazing amount of fixed mindset thinking amongst the armchair geneticists on hacker news. Two hundred years ago, the median person could not read. They could not do algebra. There is no doubt that some people are born smarter than others. There is no doubt in my mind that simultaneously we waste much of the potential of many people in our society and that the median human is capable of much more learning and output than they produce today.
- wycs 8y ago
  I agree humans are capable of learning, but the growth mindset set claim people are capable of learning how to learn, for which there is little evidence. The rate and extent of knowledge acquisition is limited by one’s general intelligence. You can not learn your way around a less effective learning apparatus. I would also say that we have plucked all the environmental low hanging fruit. Lack of education may have explained much of the variance in outcomes 200 years ago. It does not today. We are educated to the gills. Dweck’s claims that we can squeeze more out of this desiccated rag do not ring true, even before you account for how poorly ideologically-pleasing findings have held up in the replication crisis. I don’t think growth mindset interventions are going to do much of anything. Programs like Head Start have been spectacular failures, which does not seem to be what growth mindset would predict. Ultimately we are too focused on environment and have no focus on genomics. Embryo selection will be far more effective than propagandizing our children with growth mindset memes, whose workbooks read to me like modern copybook headings. 1-10 embryo selection gives you 3 to 8 points per generation. This is basically possible right now. If we had a million genomes tagged with the donor’s IQ this would for sure be possible right now. Iterated embryo selection and direct genetic engineering allow get you to many standard deviations. Growth mindset is sneezing into a hurricane. And I am not even sure the sneeze is real.
  - monetus 8y ago
    Have you ever seen the movie gattacca? What are your thoughts on the moral behind it, if you don't mind my asking?
    - 8y ago
mcguire 8y ago
Brave New World... it's not just a user's manual.
- dorchadas 8y ago
  Exactly. We're heading to a mix of the worst of Brave New World and the worst of 1984. Coupled with generic other dystopian realities, such as The Last Book in the Universe where the elite live in a perfect society separated from the rest, who live in a very dystopian one.
acomjean 8y ago
What does “smarter” mean. My brother had a friend for whom he built his RC car because this guy was uable to figure it out(and you want people to Race against). These were kit cars you build from the ground up with probable 100+ parts. Yet our non building individual went on to Ivy League universities and did fantastically well. Still incapable of fixing anything I am told.. 23 Page pdf of the manual: http://www.dirt-burners.com/rcdox/Manuals/Kyosho/Kit%20manuals/1-10th%20scale/Electric%20powered/3105%20-%20Big%20Brute%20%28EN%29.pdf http://www.dirt-burners.com/rcdox/Manuals/Kyosho/Kit%20manua...
21 8y ago
Related article today: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/us/white-supremacists-science-genetics.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/us/white-supremacists-sci... And two days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/us/white-supremacists-science-dna.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/us/white-supremacists-sci...
- iguy 8y ago
  What some insiders make of those articles: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-truth-shall-make-you-free.html http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-truth-shall-make-yo...
hacst 8y ago
I recently read the book "Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are" by Robert Plomin and it it was quite the eye opener as to how much the nature vs nurture debate seems to have been overtaken by genetic findings. According to the book genetics seems to be the single biggest factor for a ton of things in our psychology. Including various measures of intelligence and achievement. As a layman the evidence presented seemed quite convincing. The book mostly refers to big studies with thousands of twins. To separate nature and nurture studies can do things like tracking twins given up shortly after birth into two different foster families who never had any contact to their birth parents later (correlated nature), track the development twins in the same family (correlated nurture) and so on. According to Plomin the effects are huge (especially compared to what usually would be a significant result in a psychology study looking at nurture) and the controversial nature of such findings made the field extremely rigorous to the point where it is hard to imagine these results turning out to be wrong. Apparently it has all been replicated quite a bit by now. To be honest I found the book quite shocking because it runs counter to so much that is "common knowledge" and "common sense". It basically mostly discards influenceable "nurture" as a defining influence at the population level. Once certain basics are met, relevant environmental influences are mostly too random to control and much of the rest is indirectly caused by "nature". "Nature" basically creates its preferred environment (called "nature of nurture" in the book). As I am not in the field my ability to verify what the book says is limited. As far as I can tell Plomin is a very well regarded Psychologist and mostly know for his involvement in twin studies. If anyone in the field has better insight on how to evaluate what the book says I would be very interested.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  Plomin himself seems to characterize it differently: Another problem that Plomin encounters with explaining his findings is that people often confuse group and individual differences – or, to put it another way, the distinction between means and variances. Thus, the average height of northern European males has increased by more than 15cm in the past two centuries. That is obviously due to changes in environment. However, the variation in height between northern European males is down to genetics. The same applies to psychological traits. “The causes of average differences,” he says, “aren’t necessarily related to causes of individual differences. So that’s why you can say heritability can be very high for a trait, but the average differences between groups – ethnic groups, gender – could be entirely environmental; for example, as a result of discrimination. The confusion between means and variances is a fundamental misunderstanding.” https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/29/so-is-it-nature-not-nurture-after-all-genetics-robert-plomin-polygenic-testing https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/29/so-is-it-nat... The above article, and Plomin, were discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18101570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18101570
unknownkadath 8y ago
I have several objections to the paper and to some of the responses here; in fact, it's really got me hot under the collar. It is not clear that this study can support such sweeping claims. Further, due to the fast-moving nature of this forum and the high velocity of misinformation, particularly among certain elements of the online media (https://www.xkcd.com/882/ https://www.xkcd.com/882/), I feel that I must take the time to reply now rather than waiting till this evening if I want anyone to read this reply, and so I must attempt to digest a very dry, verbose work of dubious quality as well a substantial related literature ASAP, and I resent like hell having to waste some prime work hours to do it. Therefore, I apologize in advance if I seem a bit short-tempered, unfair, uneven, or less-than-rigorous in this response. First, the paper itself. The buried lede is certainly the fact that previous, purely genetic studies based on bulk sequencing alone could only find a 5% variation in poly-genetic scores in the metrics for years of educational attainment ("EduYears") selected by Smith-Wooley et al (refered to from here on as the "authors"). Other papers cited by the authors find values above and below this number, but not exceeding %20. The papers broadest, proudest claim, that around %50 of various sorts of educational attainment (with correlations of 0.27–0.76 distributed across various "university success" variables) is determined genetically, is derived entirely from their twin study. Twin studies, at their core, analyse differences between sets of fraternal and identical twins. Fraternal twins share around %50 of their DNA on average, like most siblings. Identical twins share nearly 100%. Since both members of a twin set are assumed to experience an equal environment (the Equal Environment Assumption, or EEA), then differential phenotypes exhibited by fraternal twins and not identical twins can be explained entirely by genetic differences, or so it is claimed. However, the validity of twin studies isn't settled science, and ought not be held in the same regards as, say, a computer-verified proof of the four-color theorem or the discovery of the Higgs Boson. In particular, there exists a large body of work questioning the validity of the EEA in particular(e.g. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/morris-singer/files/2008.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/morris-singer/files/2008.p...). There are questions about whether twin studies capture the actual (rather than assumed) genetic differences between different types of twins, issues regarding potentially-heritable epigenetic markers, and the differences between additive vs Mendelian and epistatic inheritances. These problems, in addition to other sources of error, when left unaddressed and compounded over several layers of statistical analysis, severely weaken any hypothesis built upon the assumption of their absence. With twin studies, these issues seem to be especially apparent surrounding studies that focus on the heritability of mental disorders. You don't have to believe me, though. As always, you should do your own research. Many of these problems can be remediated with additional research. For example, researchers can use questionnaires for the twin sets' families in order to ferret out unexpected violations of the EEA and unusual genetic circumstances. However this study seems to have been going after low-hanging fruit, using mostly archived data to reach its conclusions. Regarding the responses, I see a field of slain straw-men as far as the eye can see, and a I see a collossal tower of ick being built on a foundation of shifting sand. It is disingenuous in the extreme to equate Enlightenment ideals ("All men are created equal") with some sort bizzare desire for a Harrison Bergeron knock-off fantasy. Literally no one wants that. Further, the idea that people should be uncomfortable with genetic reductionist thinking seems to me to be common sense in light of the horrors of the first half of the twentieth century. Throw in the casual attacks on public education at all levels, and implications that we should bow down to a Calvinist tyranny of genetics," and I really have to wonder what is going on here. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a beautiful little ubermenchlet who just awoke from a nap to play with.
laughingman3 8y ago
It's easier to control access to resources when you can imply, and then systematically impose, some way to exclude others from those resources. Emphasis on genetic determinism will just be another tool to do that.
amai 8y ago
When you study the biographies of many successful geniuses (e.g. nobelprize winners) you will notice that many have been selftaught. They arrive at university already knowing everything, because they read important literature much earlier. They might have read books about calculus at the age of 13, read Einsteins publications at an age of 16 etc. . This gives them a big head start and that is why most of them succeed easily at university. There might be a genetic reason, why people do this. But in addition they also need to have access to important literature early in their life (maybe due to a supporting teacher or parents, but also simply by free access to university and online libraries). Otherwise their talent will be wasted.
- Viliam1234 8y ago
  Seems like there should be some parallel education system, which would work like this: It would be completely voluntary for the student. The student would come and say what topic they are interested in. The teacher would give an exam/interview, to find out what the student already knows (and what they believe they know, but actually misunderstand). Then the teacher would recommend books to study, most of which would be available in the local library. (Also online resources.) The student would read the books at home, or perhaps in a local quiet place. Then another exam/interview, and another book recommendation. Optionally, group debates, where multiple students could discuss the same topic with each other.
Viliam1234 8y ago
Note that a gene "against university success" does not necessarily have to be related to anything you understand as a part of education (e.g. intelligence, conscientiousness, conformity). For example, imagine that universities are discriminating against... let's use a completely random example here... Asians. In such case, if you measure how individual genes relate to university success, it will turn out that statistically, genes for being Asian are negatively correlated with university success. But that doesn't say anything about Asians' ability to learn or follow instructions, only how the current system is treating them. Or if you take a country where women are not allowed to study at a university, or course the sexual Y chromosome will be among the ones most strongly correlated with university success. So even if you find out that a certain gene is good or bad for university success, you still don't know whether this is about what the gene does, or about how the academic establishment treats people having the gene.

97 points by laughingman2 8y ago

This study measures academic performance in non-identical twins with identical twins as the control group. It finds a significant difference in outcomes between non-identical twins than identical twins suggesting the role of genes in academic outcomes. I am not a genetic researcher, more of a layman in this line of study. Some academics in social media (twitter) handwave and dismiss this research as inaccurate and they also feel its dangerous for such a study into genes (which might have ethical implications when applied to social policy) to be done without adequate interdisciplinary collaborations. Irrespective of their motivations, I am interested in knowing whether such criticisms hold good for this study.

21 8y ago
It goes further, a Twitter verified PhD in molecular biology calls it "deeply disturbing and unacceptable": > This study is so deeply disturbing and unacceptable. Studies that link genetics to intelligence/achievement are so deeply dangerous. Yet scientists jump into them without taking into account the social context in which they're doing their work. https://twitter.com/webmz_/status/1053353974764634112 https://twitter.com/webmz_/status/1053353974764634112
- zarkov99 8y ago
  Amazing. E pur si muove.
- tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
  Without a more in-depth analysis of where the study goes wrong, I'm afraid I can't simply take someone's word for it merely because they have a PhD next to their name.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    Not that I necessarily agree with what she's saying, her comment isn't on where "the study goes wrong", but rather about the fact of the study itself. In the same way that, for instance, an evil genius can be said to have created a "good" bomb, the "good" here refers to its efficiency, the number of people it can kill, the speed at which it can be activated etc. but these qualities speak nothing of whether the bomb is a good thing - for that question you need to consult the context in which it was made, and the question is of course different and mostly irrelevant to the technical parameters of the bomb. The ethics of killing have nothing to do with how long the blade of your knife is.
    - tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
      Fair point, although I feel that your interpretation may be a bit too charitable. If she had said that the paper should take into account the possible interpretations/implications of the research, then I can understand that. However, she said that the paper itself was unacceptable. I can only conclude that she would prefer no research be done if there could be negative ethical implications.
      - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
        Actually she says the paper is bad science, and says why in her Twitter feed. She's actually calling for more research, supporting more complex narratives. Meanwhile here, we're seeing that correlation does not imply causation except when it supports common prejudices and simplistic narratives. Then it absolutely does.
        tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
        She states simply that it didn't look for proper controls or caveats. As I said in my original comment, I would need an in-depth analysis of why the study is bad. Merely mentioning controls is not enough to convince me, even if the person has a PhD. And as for her "calling for more research", that is simply not true: This is one open access article the world does not need right now. She is literally saying here that it should not have been published.
- laughingman2 8y ago
  Yeah, I was referring to that thread. Without explicitly stating what's wrong with the study (in which many factors could go wrong), Or stating how/why environmental factors could still derail the study despite twin control, the twitter thread derails into "social responsibility" etc. I have a political bias towards the left (equality, more democratic control etc), but I would never say scientific truth should be subservient to my ideology. That kind of a view has a huge stench of the postmodernist ideology on how even science is subjective like literary criticism. Any ethical axiom is cannot be contingent on facts due to the is-ought problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem). But the moment some the moral axioms are used to make decisions in the real world, the decisions have to be consistent with the axioms. The effect of decisions is contingent on facts aka Science. So given a belief in induction, science can help inform what you "ought" to do with respect to your axioms. Contrary to the subset of people in the left who blindly believe the Blank Slate hypothesis, or fear that genetic studies will change their ethical assumptions, I argue that more knowledge (genetic, sociological etc ) through science would only help you to be more committed to you ethics by allowing you to exercise it properly. I think Steven Pinker's argument against (part of) left's obsession with blank slate rings true https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_... I think Peter Singer (of Animal Liberation fame) alludes to the same point in the Darwinian Left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Darwinian_Left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Darwinian_Left (haven't read it yet)
- dgut 8y ago
  It's her maternal instinct kicking in. I know some female scientists who wouldn't want to hear anything about attributing differences to IQ or genes and become very emotional if the topic is ever mentioned. "I don't want to think of my friends from X as N".
  - laughingman2 8y ago
    I think by calling someone's error out as "maternal instinct" instead of arguing against it rationally, you have become the very caricature that makes their argument more valid.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Why not 'her social responsibility' kicking in? Because there it is, attributing 'weak' motivations to women, because of course women are all the same. This would be funny, a comment that exhibits precisely why the argument it 'refutes' is true. If it wasn't sexist and demeaning as well.
    - dgut 8y ago
      This is not social responsibility. It's an emotional reaction to a scientific study. There is nothing irresponsible about the study. Science doesn't have to care for the emotions of specific groups. Then we're doomed. And yes, neurotypical women are close to identical at the meta level I'm talking about. Same for men.
      - claudiawerner 8y ago
        >Science doesn't have to care for the emotions of specific groups. Then we're doomed. What's your opinion on the idea of scientific ethics?
        ThrowawayR2 8y ago
        > What's your opinion on the idea of scientific ethics? Neither harm to the subjects of the research nor the ones conducting it is occurring, so it's unclear how scientific ethics comes into play. Are you genuinely attempting to suggests that there some truths about the universe which are so inimical to the human spirit that we dare not reveal them? If so, the quote which springs immediately to mind is PKD's "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
thrower123 8y ago
I feel like we must have done enough twin studies over the years at this point to conclusively say that genetic heritage is the most significant factor for a whole host of ourcomes. Environmental factors are alluring, because they offer the potential that something can be done, through toil and good works, to achieve improvements, rather than the more Calvinist tyranny of genetics.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  They are also alluring because of the fear that policies could be put in place which excludes people based on the factors that are pre-determined; this idea is offensive to both those in favor of "meritocracy" and those who believe in the equality of opportunities. It also challenges the idea of human worth, since many people (mistakenly, in my opinion) believe human worth is (or should be) tied to mental and physical abilities.
  - mmirate 8y ago
    How does > if you believe so, then you believe that human worth is predetermined constitute a challenge to > human worth should be tied to mental and physical abilities ? Is there some implicit negative value attached to the hypothesis that human worth could be predetermined? (Edit -- counterarguments are more educational/enlightening than downvotes.)
    - claudiawerner 8y ago
      >Is there some implicit negative value attached to the hypothesis that human worth could be predetermined? I think so, yes. It runs counter to the idea of a free and equal society, and necessitates setting up standards (subjective ones imposed by an authority) as to which qualities are good and which are bad; this very easily leads to narrow-minded elitism, for instance, preferring mental abilities over physical ones, or general intelligence over emotional intelligence etc. The notion of social equality is important, in my opinion.
      - 8y ago
pickpuck 8y ago
Speaking of motivations: > These findings suggest young adults select and modify their educational experiences in part based on their genetic propensities and highlight the potential for DNA-based predictions of real-world outcomes, which will continue to increase in predictive power.
- zarkov99 8y ago
  This does not say anything about motivations, which, in any case, are irrelevant in assessing the value of the scholarship.
  - tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
    Exactly. It's either valid research or it isn't.
liftbigweights 8y ago
Excellent point. The study of genetics and its influence seems to be trapped between two extremes due to racial horrors of the 20th century. 100 years ago, social darwinists claimed genetics (race/blood) was everything. It was destiny. And as a result the world endured senseless horrors. As a reaction to the horrors of ww2, another extreme has taken hold - the side that claims genetics has no influence. To proclaim otherwise would make you are nazi. The more sensible and correct middle ground, that genetics isn't destiny but a major component of many contributing factors to your life and success, seems verboten in academia and the public in general. It's both obvious that genetics plays a role and it's equally obvious that environment plays a role. But due to historical baggage, scientists have to tread lightly. If michael jordan grew up in the congo, he wouldn't have been one of the greatest basketball players. If einstein grew up in iraq in the late 1800s, he wouldn't have been one of the greatest scientists. Both nature and nurture play a part in success.
nabla9 8y ago
What the genes that correlate with academic success mean is easy to misunderstand. Some may assume that those who succeed have 'smart' genes, but it can be that they are healthier. Just having better immune system can lead to better academic success. So can avoiding depression.
- WalterSear 8y ago
  Why do you think that the form of the genetic advantage makes any difference? The difference is the difference.
  - justtopost 8y ago
    I think making someone healthier (protecting from a known defect in this case) is more understood, and therefore more probable and actionable than making them 'smarter'. We can't stop at treating just the symptom of injustice, without begeting our own injustice. History is bearing that out clearly. I feel, the difference is signifigant, and worthy of investigation beyond a doubt.
  - nabla9 8y ago
    One form can be potentially changed with policy, the other may not be.

paulpauper 8y ago

It's not as controversial anymore attributing differences of athletic success to genes, but academic success is still a thorny issue . My guess is there is a lot of money and jobs at stake in perpetuating a set of systems and beliefs that don't work as well as previously thought (sunk cost fallacy comes to mind).

wycs 8y ago
It is startling how ineffective basically all educational interventions are. I remember reading a quote to this effect in the introduction to the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: “Teaching is a skill we have not yet mastered, save for to those happy people for whom it is almost superfluous.” We have known intelligence is heritable for a long time. Anyone who has lived for a great length of time in a small town has seen this in their neighbours. We have had twin studies basically confirming it for ages; and soon cognitive genomics will confirm it beyond the smallest shadow of a doubt. It is a testament to what epistemic hacks humans are that we allowed these extreme priors to be overwhelmed by empty political fashion.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Yet there's the exceptional young man from the local solid and dependable farm family, who got a philosophy degree at Auburn, first in his line to do so. The political 'fashion' is perhaps more about not pigeonholing people by fallible means, and more about giving them a chance regardless?
  - bdndndnndndndnd 8y ago
    You have answered your own question with the word "exceptional". This individual is truly, as you say, an exception to the rule.
    - monetus 8y ago
      I fear we understand genetics only relatively better than we understand phrenology...

fallingfrog 8y ago

One thing to bear in mind is that university success depends more on being compliant to authority than intelligence, at least until you get to the grad school level, and maybe then too.

claystu 8y ago
How in the world does "being compliant to authority" contribute to university success? What major emphasizes compliance over learning the material and doing the work?
- mylamename 8y ago
  I think the answer lies in your question.
- twtw 8y ago
  In my experience: You say, "I already know this stuff, can I just take the final?" Uni says, "this is a required course for graduation, you must take it." If you don't comply or push hard enough to make Uni comply with you, you don't graduate. This is how I ended up learning all about System.out.println my final semester of university.
  - claystu 8y ago
    I don't see anything in your response about success. It's true that if you want credit for completing a major, then it is necessary for you to actually complete the major, but that still doesn't equate to graduating at or near the top of your class.
    - twtw 8y ago
      perhaps I wasn't clear. I completed all of the courses for the major, with the exception of CS101, introduction to computer programming. I took many classes that ostensibly had a prerequisite on CS101, including additional nonrequired courses that could have easily been substituted for CS101. Nonetheless, as you say, it was "necessary for [me] to actually complete the major" by going back after taking CS4xx to complete CS101. Was this a required part of the major? yes. Was it a valuable part to be required without exception? Maybe, but I tend to not think so. > I don't see anything in your response about success "Not graduating" is a pretty clear way in my mind to "not succeed." I indicated that compliance to authority in my experience was necessary for graduation, which implies that it was necessary for success, does it not? > graduating at or near the top of your class ok?

sjg007 8y ago

I mean if u have uncontrolled add, depression or anxiety your university experience will suffer. Also any other long term illness. Success at university should be a spectrum.

gdudeman 8y ago

There is an amazing amount of fixed mindset thinking amongst the armchair geneticists on hacker news. Two hundred years ago, the median person could not read. They could not do algebra. There is no doubt that some people are born smarter than others. There is no doubt in my mind that simultaneously we waste much of the potential of many people in our society and that the median human is capable of much more learning and output than they produce today.

wycs 8y ago
I agree humans are capable of learning, but the growth mindset set claim people are capable of learning how to learn, for which there is little evidence. The rate and extent of knowledge acquisition is limited by one’s general intelligence. You can not learn your way around a less effective learning apparatus. I would also say that we have plucked all the environmental low hanging fruit. Lack of education may have explained much of the variance in outcomes 200 years ago. It does not today. We are educated to the gills. Dweck’s claims that we can squeeze more out of this desiccated rag do not ring true, even before you account for how poorly ideologically-pleasing findings have held up in the replication crisis. I don’t think growth mindset interventions are going to do much of anything. Programs like Head Start have been spectacular failures, which does not seem to be what growth mindset would predict. Ultimately we are too focused on environment and have no focus on genomics. Embryo selection will be far more effective than propagandizing our children with growth mindset memes, whose workbooks read to me like modern copybook headings. 1-10 embryo selection gives you 3 to 8 points per generation. This is basically possible right now. If we had a million genomes tagged with the donor’s IQ this would for sure be possible right now. Iterated embryo selection and direct genetic engineering allow get you to many standard deviations. Growth mindset is sneezing into a hurricane. And I am not even sure the sneeze is real.
- monetus 8y ago
  Have you ever seen the movie gattacca? What are your thoughts on the moral behind it, if you don't mind my asking?
  - 8y ago

mcguire 8y ago

Brave New World... it's not just a user's manual.

dorchadas 8y ago
Exactly. We're heading to a mix of the worst of Brave New World and the worst of 1984. Coupled with generic other dystopian realities, such as The Last Book in the Universe where the elite live in a perfect society separated from the rest, who live in a very dystopian one.

acomjean 8y ago

What does “smarter” mean. My brother had a friend for whom he built his RC car because this guy was uable to figure it out(and you want people to Race against). These were kit cars you build from the ground up with probable 100+ parts. Yet our non building individual went on to Ivy League universities and did fantastically well. Still incapable of fixing anything I am told.. 23 Page pdf of the manual: http://www.dirt-burners.com/rcdox/Manuals/Kyosho/Kit%20manuals/1-10th%20scale/Electric%20powered/3105%20-%20Big%20Brute%20%28EN%29.pdf http://www.dirt-burners.com/rcdox/Manuals/Kyosho/Kit%20manua...

21 8y ago

Related article today: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/us/white-supremacists-science-genetics.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/us/white-supremacists-sci... And two days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/us/white-supremacists-science-dna.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/us/white-supremacists-sci...

iguy 8y ago
What some insiders make of those articles: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-truth-shall-make-you-free.html http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-truth-shall-make-yo...

hacst 8y ago

I recently read the book "Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are" by Robert Plomin and it it was quite the eye opener as to how much the nature vs nurture debate seems to have been overtaken by genetic findings. According to the book genetics seems to be the single biggest factor for a ton of things in our psychology. Including various measures of intelligence and achievement. As a layman the evidence presented seemed quite convincing. The book mostly refers to big studies with thousands of twins. To separate nature and nurture studies can do things like tracking twins given up shortly after birth into two different foster families who never had any contact to their birth parents later (correlated nature), track the development twins in the same family (correlated nurture) and so on. According to Plomin the effects are huge (especially compared to what usually would be a significant result in a psychology study looking at nurture) and the controversial nature of such findings made the field extremely rigorous to the point where it is hard to imagine these results turning out to be wrong. Apparently it has all been replicated quite a bit by now. To be honest I found the book quite shocking because it runs counter to so much that is "common knowledge" and "common sense". It basically mostly discards influenceable "nurture" as a defining influence at the population level. Once certain basics are met, relevant environmental influences are mostly too random to control and much of the rest is indirectly caused by "nature". "Nature" basically creates its preferred environment (called "nature of nurture" in the book). As I am not in the field my ability to verify what the book says is limited. As far as I can tell Plomin is a very well regarded Psychologist and mostly know for his involvement in twin studies. If anyone in the field has better insight on how to evaluate what the book says I would be very interested.

forapurpose 8y ago
Plomin himself seems to characterize it differently: Another problem that Plomin encounters with explaining his findings is that people often confuse group and individual differences – or, to put it another way, the distinction between means and variances. Thus, the average height of northern European males has increased by more than 15cm in the past two centuries. That is obviously due to changes in environment. However, the variation in height between northern European males is down to genetics. The same applies to psychological traits. “The causes of average differences,” he says, “aren’t necessarily related to causes of individual differences. So that’s why you can say heritability can be very high for a trait, but the average differences between groups – ethnic groups, gender – could be entirely environmental; for example, as a result of discrimination. The confusion between means and variances is a fundamental misunderstanding.” https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/29/so-is-it-nature-not-nurture-after-all-genetics-robert-plomin-polygenic-testing https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/29/so-is-it-nat... The above article, and Plomin, were discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18101570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18101570

unknownkadath 8y ago

I have several objections to the paper and to some of the responses here; in fact, it's really got me hot under the collar. It is not clear that this study can support such sweeping claims. Further, due to the fast-moving nature of this forum and the high velocity of misinformation, particularly among certain elements of the online media (https://www.xkcd.com/882/ https://www.xkcd.com/882/), I feel that I must take the time to reply now rather than waiting till this evening if I want anyone to read this reply, and so I must attempt to digest a very dry, verbose work of dubious quality as well a substantial related literature ASAP, and I resent like hell having to waste some prime work hours to do it. Therefore, I apologize in advance if I seem a bit short-tempered, unfair, uneven, or less-than-rigorous in this response. First, the paper itself. The buried lede is certainly the fact that previous, purely genetic studies based on bulk sequencing alone could only find a 5% variation in poly-genetic scores in the metrics for years of educational attainment ("EduYears") selected by Smith-Wooley et al (refered to from here on as the "authors"). Other papers cited by the authors find values above and below this number, but not exceeding %20. The papers broadest, proudest claim, that around %50 of various sorts of educational attainment (with correlations of 0.27–0.76 distributed across various "university success" variables) is determined genetically, is derived entirely from their twin study. Twin studies, at their core, analyse differences between sets of fraternal and identical twins. Fraternal twins share around %50 of their DNA on average, like most siblings. Identical twins share nearly 100%. Since both members of a twin set are assumed to experience an equal environment (the Equal Environment Assumption, or EEA), then differential phenotypes exhibited by fraternal twins and not identical twins can be explained entirely by genetic differences, or so it is claimed. However, the validity of twin studies isn't settled science, and ought not be held in the same regards as, say, a computer-verified proof of the four-color theorem or the discovery of the Higgs Boson. In particular, there exists a large body of work questioning the validity of the EEA in particular(e.g. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/morris-singer/files/2008.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/morris-singer/files/2008.p...). There are questions about whether twin studies capture the actual (rather than assumed) genetic differences between different types of twins, issues regarding potentially-heritable epigenetic markers, and the differences between additive vs Mendelian and epistatic inheritances. These problems, in addition to other sources of error, when left unaddressed and compounded over several layers of statistical analysis, severely weaken any hypothesis built upon the assumption of their absence. With twin studies, these issues seem to be especially apparent surrounding studies that focus on the heritability of mental disorders. You don't have to believe me, though. As always, you should do your own research. Many of these problems can be remediated with additional research. For example, researchers can use questionnaires for the twin sets' families in order to ferret out unexpected violations of the EEA and unusual genetic circumstances. However this study seems to have been going after low-hanging fruit, using mostly archived data to reach its conclusions. Regarding the responses, I see a field of slain straw-men as far as the eye can see, and a I see a collossal tower of ick being built on a foundation of shifting sand. It is disingenuous in the extreme to equate Enlightenment ideals ("All men are created equal") with some sort bizzare desire for a Harrison Bergeron knock-off fantasy. Literally no one wants that. Further, the idea that people should be uncomfortable with genetic reductionist thinking seems to me to be common sense in light of the horrors of the first half of the twentieth century. Throw in the casual attacks on public education at all levels, and implications that we should bow down to a Calvinist tyranny of genetics," and I really have to wonder what is going on here. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a beautiful little ubermenchlet who just awoke from a nap to play with.

laughingman3 8y ago

It's easier to control access to resources when you can imply, and then systematically impose, some way to exclude others from those resources. Emphasis on genetic determinism will just be another tool to do that.

amai 8y ago

When you study the biographies of many successful geniuses (e.g. nobelprize winners) you will notice that many have been selftaught. They arrive at university already knowing everything, because they read important literature much earlier. They might have read books about calculus at the age of 13, read Einsteins publications at an age of 16 etc. . This gives them a big head start and that is why most of them succeed easily at university. There might be a genetic reason, why people do this. But in addition they also need to have access to important literature early in their life (maybe due to a supporting teacher or parents, but also simply by free access to university and online libraries). Otherwise their talent will be wasted.

Viliam1234 8y ago
Seems like there should be some parallel education system, which would work like this: It would be completely voluntary for the student. The student would come and say what topic they are interested in. The teacher would give an exam/interview, to find out what the student already knows (and what they believe they know, but actually misunderstand). Then the teacher would recommend books to study, most of which would be available in the local library. (Also online resources.) The student would read the books at home, or perhaps in a local quiet place. Then another exam/interview, and another book recommendation. Optionally, group debates, where multiple students could discuss the same topic with each other.

Viliam1234 8y ago

Note that a gene "against university success" does not necessarily have to be related to anything you understand as a part of education (e.g. intelligence, conscientiousness, conformity). For example, imagine that universities are discriminating against... let's use a completely random example here... Asians. In such case, if you measure how individual genes relate to university success, it will turn out that statistically, genes for being Asian are negatively correlated with university success. But that doesn't say anything about Asians' ability to learn or follow instructions, only how the current system is treating them. Or if you take a country where women are not allowed to study at a university, or course the sexual Y chromosome will be among the ones most strongly correlated with university success. So even if you find out that a certain gene is good or bad for university success, you still don't know whether this is about what the gene does, or about how the academic establishment treats people having the gene.