6 ms·

Would be interesting if certain humans have these genes and some don’t. That way couples could be tested before committing to marriage and be more informed. Ide

Would be interesting if certain humans have these genes and some don’t. That way couples could be tested before committing to marriage and be more informed. Ideally though, people could know ahead of time what genes a partner carries before going further with a relationship. This is one example of how using genetics data for a dating network can help produce better matches, and more calculated offspring.

behringer 8y ago
Oddly enough, I dumped my last girlfriend for failing her gene test.
- BearsAreCool 8y ago
  I don't know what this means and want more details.
  - ouid 8y ago
    I believe it was a tongue in cheek response which served to point out how horrible society would be if the parent comments wish were to come true.
    - matte_black 8y ago
      Every time I bring this idea up people say it will be the most horrible of societies, but they can never seem to effectively explain why.
      - PhilWright 8y ago
        Because you are disadvantaging people for a behaviour they might never exhibit. There is a reason we do not punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. You should judge people on their actual actions and not on your prediction of their actions.
        matte_black 8y ago
        Not being selected isn’t a punishment. We are not entitled to having everyone find us attractive. We are not even entitled to having a mate. There really may not be someone for everyone. If you have very unattractive qualities and because of that people are not selecting you, they are not punishing you. If someone doesn’t want to be with you because you admit you’ve cheated in the past but don’t plan to anymore, that is fair. If you carry genes that make you more likely to seek out other partners and they don’t want that, that is also fair.
        ubercow13 8y ago
        But you can't override your genetic disposition for being physically unattractive with your human willpower and become attractive.
        behringer 8y ago
        Yes you can. Have you never heard of someone having an attractive personality? People also have different tastes and different ideas of what is attractive. You can also become more attractive as you age. You can also have plastic surgery. Your genes that set physical attractiveness have little to do with just how attractive you actually are, who else may or may not find you attractive, and your chances for successfully passing on your genes. Eg, your genes aren't the entire story, maybe not even most of the story.
      - tomhoward 8y ago
        In the case of the linked article, we're not talking about the presence of genes, but rather their expression. Genetic expression is influenced by many things, some that we understand and some that we don't (yet), but it is highly plausible that this can be (and already is) influenced and optimised throughout people's lives. People's negative reaction to your proposal is obviously because people think it's dystopian to think that the genetic hand you're dealt at birth is highly restrictive and deterministic in terms of your potential life outcomes. Policies like the one you describe would lead to a horrible society, because anybody who comes to believe that they are doomed to a miserable, futile life will not contribute positively to society and may well contribute very negatively. I suspect much of what we're seeing playing out around the world right now is at least partly a result of this phenomenon. If it turns out that people's genetic expression is far more important than their genetic blueprint, and that their genetic expression can be influenced and optimised to lead to improved life outcomes, then people will be motivated to contribute positively to society and society will be vastly improved.
        stareatgoats 8y ago
        Yes, "facts" are in fact seldom facts as much as beliefs. Belief may indeed be the most factual thing we have. One derived lesson being; believe in yourself, view any evidence to the contrary with extreme skepticism.
shard972 8y ago
What is the chances that after going down this rabbit hole, you end up with racist algorithms that match people who are within the same ethnic group? It seems quite possible that you would find more "compatible" matches with people who are more genetically similar.
- matte_black 8y ago
  Good question. First of all, people control the genes they are looking for. Algorithms just find people according to given parameters, they are not racist. Second, there’s nothing racist about preferring people in your own ethnic group. Most people find their own race most attractive for a partner, and there’s reason to believe that will still be the case in a post-racism world. Yes there will be mixed couples, but people who want a mate from their own race aren’t racist.
  - King-Aaron 8y ago
    > people control the genes they are looking for. Algorithms just find people according to given parameters, they are not racist. Uuuh, while your algorithm isn't racist, if a person is using an algorithm to be racist, then it could be concluded that what is happening is... racism.
    - bdamm 8y ago
      Computers generally cannot solve for the user’s bad intentions. Of course companies do try, and that’s either a value add or a regulatory requirement. Stamping out racism by making it impossible to carry out racist ideas seems like a losing strategy.
      - Zobat 8y ago
        Algorithms are not racist but they might very well be biased, intentionally or not. As a programmer I make assumptions every time I write code and I rarely have 100% insight into the full implications of that code. Sometimes I generate machine learning (ML) solutions and then this holds more true than ever. All the best (least biased) matchmaking solutions will be ML, as well as all the worst (most biased). Also, matching for the best DNA/RNA/gene expression match, wouldn't that just separate us into different species of humans?
bilbo0s 8y ago
This doesn't solve the main problems with dating services. For instance, one big problem is that threes are with threes, and eights are with eights. Just because you give them an email saying they have similar genes, you're not going to convince an eight to go with a three. (That's one of the biggest problems in today's dating services. If you could figure out how to make an eight go with a three, you could make billions.) Anyway, by far the biggest problem, one that no one has been able to solve, is that nines and tens are not on the dating service at all. (They don't need it.) So even if you throw in genetics, the nines and the tens are still better off dating in their own circles. I'd imagine that the genetics are generally pretty good in your average Division 1 athletics department for instance. So a top 10 offensive lineman and a top 10 women's volleyball or basketball player would be very unlikely to find better genetics on any gene based dating service that I could create. In fact, it could be argued that the athletic departments themselves are already serving ss genetically gated dating services for elite genes. Stanford crew girl has a thing for Stanford wide receiver is a lot easier method of getting good gene sets together than testing millions of people and trying to make matches by computer that you hope the people will like. (And I'd wager that if we were to put together a dating service that tried to match good genes, the crew girl and the wide out would create superior offspring in any case. [I don't like using the word "superior", but you get what I mean.]) So adding genetic services might appeal to a subset of users, but it's not going to solve the main problems with your average dating service today. How to get eights to go with threes? and how to get nines and tens to use your service at all? Adding genetic services would only be doing a LOT of work to add a service that may appeal to a very niche slice of the dating market.
- danielcarver 8y ago
  > In fact, it could be argued that the athletic departments themselves are already serving ss genetically gated dating services for elite genes. Stanford crew girl has a thing for Stanford wide receiver is a lot easier method of getting good gene sets together than testing millions of people and trying to make matches by computer that you hope the people will like. (And I'd wager that if we were to put together a dating service that tried to match good genes, the crew girl and the wide out would create superior offspring in any case. [I don't like using the word "superior", but you get what I mean.]) Super duper insightful man. But both problems you’re discussing have already been solved: >how to get eights to go with threes? Prostitution. >how to get nines and tens to use your service at all? Build a walled garden, I.e. the Raya app.
steventhedev 8y ago
Stop. Seriously. Stop. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the reason you're getting downvoted is because you're advocating something that is basically eugenics wearing modern clothing. The practice of eugenics is generally associated with Nazis. Yes, those Nazis. Not just the modern ones, but the Hitler 1920s-1945 ones who started a World War. They used "superior genetics" as a justification for many of their actions before, during, and after the war. Don't be a Nazi. Accept that this is fresh research, that genetics may set someone out on a different path but that there are many other factors that affect their life and choices. In this study[0], there is no human research, and the definition of monogamy is limited to a single mating season. It's also looking at gene expression, which means that a gene that everyone has is either turned on or off. For reference, genes are expressed differently in various parts of your body, and is a fairly good test for various types of cancer. [0]: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/01/02/1813775116 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/01/02/1813775116
- user13243458 8y ago
  This kind of fear mongering about genetics wont do anyone any good. Biological determinism is reality.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rjf72 8y ago
  I think the leap to eugenics there is not warranted. Eugenics is about enforced selective breeding. Enforcement being the key. Imagine you are tall and want a child that is also tall and so actively seek out a tall partner. That's obviously not engaging in eugenics, but an enforced prohibition on short individuals procreating would indeed be eugenics. I would very much oppose any government ever enforcing genetic criterion on a mass level. But I see no qualms about individuals themselves having genetic preferences. Your argument might be that well nobody would want somebody with [undesirable trait x] so it would exclude these individuals from the collective gene pool, yet we see in real life that that's not how things work. Being short is not very desired, is genetically linked, and is immediately visible. Yet in spite of all of that, in practice it in no way stops people from living great lives, raising families, and finding great partners.
black-tea 8y ago
Do you really think any humans hold the "monogamous gene"? Monogamy in humans is entirely learnt behaviour. You only need to look at the prevalence of porn. Almost every man simulates sleeping with other women. Women are more hypergamous than non-monogamous but, again, just watch a few of their chick flicks and you'll see their version of porn.
pjc50 8y ago
I knew immediately on seeing the title that people would start making pseudoscientific comments on the implications for humans, without regard to actual anthropology and with a side of sexism.
- tql 8y ago
  By mentioning sexism, when the parent comment doesn't, you're already assuming only women can be cheats. Please don't be a sexist, it's against the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - danielcarver 8y ago
    I don’t understand this at all. The dude you’re responding to is clearly criticizing sexism rather than reinforcing it. There is absolutely nothing in his comment to suggest that “only women can be cheats.”
  - kolinko 8y ago
    +1 to implicit sexism. But why an implicit sexism means that a person assumes only women (and not only men) can be cheats? I've more often met with a misconception that men cheat more often than women.

behringer 8y ago

Oddly enough, I dumped my last girlfriend for failing her gene test.

BearsAreCool 8y ago
I don't know what this means and want more details.
- ouid 8y ago
  I believe it was a tongue in cheek response which served to point out how horrible society would be if the parent comments wish were to come true.
  - matte_black 8y ago
    Every time I bring this idea up people say it will be the most horrible of societies, but they can never seem to effectively explain why.
    - PhilWright 8y ago
      Because you are disadvantaging people for a behaviour they might never exhibit. There is a reason we do not punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. You should judge people on their actual actions and not on your prediction of their actions.
      - matte_black 8y ago
        Not being selected isn’t a punishment. We are not entitled to having everyone find us attractive. We are not even entitled to having a mate. There really may not be someone for everyone. If you have very unattractive qualities and because of that people are not selecting you, they are not punishing you. If someone doesn’t want to be with you because you admit you’ve cheated in the past but don’t plan to anymore, that is fair. If you carry genes that make you more likely to seek out other partners and they don’t want that, that is also fair.
        ubercow13 8y ago
        But you can't override your genetic disposition for being physically unattractive with your human willpower and become attractive.
        behringer 8y ago
        Yes you can. Have you never heard of someone having an attractive personality? People also have different tastes and different ideas of what is attractive. You can also become more attractive as you age. You can also have plastic surgery. Your genes that set physical attractiveness have little to do with just how attractive you actually are, who else may or may not find you attractive, and your chances for successfully passing on your genes. Eg, your genes aren't the entire story, maybe not even most of the story.
    - tomhoward 8y ago
      In the case of the linked article, we're not talking about the presence of genes, but rather their expression. Genetic expression is influenced by many things, some that we understand and some that we don't (yet), but it is highly plausible that this can be (and already is) influenced and optimised throughout people's lives. People's negative reaction to your proposal is obviously because people think it's dystopian to think that the genetic hand you're dealt at birth is highly restrictive and deterministic in terms of your potential life outcomes. Policies like the one you describe would lead to a horrible society, because anybody who comes to believe that they are doomed to a miserable, futile life will not contribute positively to society and may well contribute very negatively. I suspect much of what we're seeing playing out around the world right now is at least partly a result of this phenomenon. If it turns out that people's genetic expression is far more important than their genetic blueprint, and that their genetic expression can be influenced and optimised to lead to improved life outcomes, then people will be motivated to contribute positively to society and society will be vastly improved.
      - stareatgoats 8y ago
        Yes, "facts" are in fact seldom facts as much as beliefs. Belief may indeed be the most factual thing we have. One derived lesson being; believe in yourself, view any evidence to the contrary with extreme skepticism.

shard972 8y ago

What is the chances that after going down this rabbit hole, you end up with racist algorithms that match people who are within the same ethnic group? It seems quite possible that you would find more "compatible" matches with people who are more genetically similar.

matte_black 8y ago
Good question. First of all, people control the genes they are looking for. Algorithms just find people according to given parameters, they are not racist. Second, there’s nothing racist about preferring people in your own ethnic group. Most people find their own race most attractive for a partner, and there’s reason to believe that will still be the case in a post-racism world. Yes there will be mixed couples, but people who want a mate from their own race aren’t racist.
- King-Aaron 8y ago
  > people control the genes they are looking for. Algorithms just find people according to given parameters, they are not racist. Uuuh, while your algorithm isn't racist, if a person is using an algorithm to be racist, then it could be concluded that what is happening is... racism.
  - bdamm 8y ago
    Computers generally cannot solve for the user’s bad intentions. Of course companies do try, and that’s either a value add or a regulatory requirement. Stamping out racism by making it impossible to carry out racist ideas seems like a losing strategy.
    - Zobat 8y ago
      Algorithms are not racist but they might very well be biased, intentionally or not. As a programmer I make assumptions every time I write code and I rarely have 100% insight into the full implications of that code. Sometimes I generate machine learning (ML) solutions and then this holds more true than ever. All the best (least biased) matchmaking solutions will be ML, as well as all the worst (most biased). Also, matching for the best DNA/RNA/gene expression match, wouldn't that just separate us into different species of humans?

bilbo0s 8y ago

This doesn't solve the main problems with dating services. For instance, one big problem is that threes are with threes, and eights are with eights. Just because you give them an email saying they have similar genes, you're not going to convince an eight to go with a three. (That's one of the biggest problems in today's dating services. If you could figure out how to make an eight go with a three, you could make billions.) Anyway, by far the biggest problem, one that no one has been able to solve, is that nines and tens are not on the dating service at all. (They don't need it.) So even if you throw in genetics, the nines and the tens are still better off dating in their own circles. I'd imagine that the genetics are generally pretty good in your average Division 1 athletics department for instance. So a top 10 offensive lineman and a top 10 women's volleyball or basketball player would be very unlikely to find better genetics on any gene based dating service that I could create. In fact, it could be argued that the athletic departments themselves are already serving ss genetically gated dating services for elite genes. Stanford crew girl has a thing for Stanford wide receiver is a lot easier method of getting good gene sets together than testing millions of people and trying to make matches by computer that you hope the people will like. (And I'd wager that if we were to put together a dating service that tried to match good genes, the crew girl and the wide out would create superior offspring in any case. [I don't like using the word "superior", but you get what I mean.]) So adding genetic services might appeal to a subset of users, but it's not going to solve the main problems with your average dating service today. How to get eights to go with threes? and how to get nines and tens to use your service at all? Adding genetic services would only be doing a LOT of work to add a service that may appeal to a very niche slice of the dating market.

danielcarver 8y ago
> In fact, it could be argued that the athletic departments themselves are already serving ss genetically gated dating services for elite genes. Stanford crew girl has a thing for Stanford wide receiver is a lot easier method of getting good gene sets together than testing millions of people and trying to make matches by computer that you hope the people will like. (And I'd wager that if we were to put together a dating service that tried to match good genes, the crew girl and the wide out would create superior offspring in any case. [I don't like using the word "superior", but you get what I mean.]) Super duper insightful man. But both problems you’re discussing have already been solved: >how to get eights to go with threes? Prostitution. >how to get nines and tens to use your service at all? Build a walled garden, I.e. the Raya app.

steventhedev 8y ago

Stop. Seriously. Stop. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the reason you're getting downvoted is because you're advocating something that is basically eugenics wearing modern clothing. The practice of eugenics is generally associated with Nazis. Yes, those Nazis. Not just the modern ones, but the Hitler 1920s-1945 ones who started a World War. They used "superior genetics" as a justification for many of their actions before, during, and after the war. Don't be a Nazi. Accept that this is fresh research, that genetics may set someone out on a different path but that there are many other factors that affect their life and choices. In this study[0], there is no human research, and the definition of monogamy is limited to a single mating season. It's also looking at gene expression, which means that a gene that everyone has is either turned on or off. For reference, genes are expressed differently in various parts of your body, and is a fairly good test for various types of cancer. [0]: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/01/02/1813775116 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/01/02/1813775116

user13243458 8y ago
This kind of fear mongering about genetics wont do anyone any good. Biological determinism is reality.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rjf72 8y ago
I think the leap to eugenics there is not warranted. Eugenics is about enforced selective breeding. Enforcement being the key. Imagine you are tall and want a child that is also tall and so actively seek out a tall partner. That's obviously not engaging in eugenics, but an enforced prohibition on short individuals procreating would indeed be eugenics. I would very much oppose any government ever enforcing genetic criterion on a mass level. But I see no qualms about individuals themselves having genetic preferences. Your argument might be that well nobody would want somebody with [undesirable trait x] so it would exclude these individuals from the collective gene pool, yet we see in real life that that's not how things work. Being short is not very desired, is genetically linked, and is immediately visible. Yet in spite of all of that, in practice it in no way stops people from living great lives, raising families, and finding great partners.

black-tea 8y ago

Do you really think any humans hold the "monogamous gene"? Monogamy in humans is entirely learnt behaviour. You only need to look at the prevalence of porn. Almost every man simulates sleeping with other women. Women are more hypergamous than non-monogamous but, again, just watch a few of their chick flicks and you'll see their version of porn.

pjc50 8y ago

I knew immediately on seeing the title that people would start making pseudoscientific comments on the implications for humans, without regard to actual anthropology and with a side of sexism.

tql 8y ago
By mentioning sexism, when the parent comment doesn't, you're already assuming only women can be cheats. Please don't be a sexist, it's against the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- danielcarver 8y ago
  I don’t understand this at all. The dude you’re responding to is clearly criticizing sexism rather than reinforcing it. There is absolutely nothing in his comment to suggest that “only women can be cheats.”
- kolinko 8y ago
  +1 to implicit sexism. But why an implicit sexism means that a person assumes only women (and not only men) can be cheats? I've more often met with a misconception that men cheat more often than women.