3 ms·

The author's fear is that current views of genetics will lead to horrible policy decisions; thus, genetic determinism should be undermined. Evidence against sim

The author's fear is that current views of genetics will lead to horrible policy decisions; thus, genetic determinism should be undermined. Evidence against simple, linearly addititive genetic determinism is used to argue against genetic determinism more broadly. I am very much in favor of genetic agnosticism, the position that we are currently very poor at predicting complex traits from genetic data (and may always be). Failure to predict does not negate genetic determinism per se. However, clonal animals and human twins provide fairly strong evidence of the limits of genetic determinism.

ummonk 8y ago
Identical twins raised separately end up rather similar in adulthood. So human twins actually provides fairly strong evidence that genes substantially (though not exclusively) determine how we end up.
- solveit 8y ago
  They end up remarkably similar, but it turns that remarkably similar isn't nearly similar enough to be useful in most contexts. In fact, I think the biggest lesson of the social sciences is a deeper intuitive understanding of how individual variation will completely dominate any other statistical factor in anything made of people, and how fortunate we were that the physical sciences were much simpler.
  - 1_over_n 8y ago
    Exactly. "Remarkably similar" != "Identical" (using the truest version of the word identical - exactly the same)
  - philipov 8y ago
    Stanford's Youtube channel has a series of lectures for Robert Sapolsky's class on Human Behavioral Biology, and he spends a good amount of time on genetics there. The view he presents there is that there is no such thing as a gene FOR something, because the effect of a gene is a function of the environment in which it is expressed. For example, it's incorrect to think in terms of a gene for depression, but it is more reasonable to think of a gene that will make you vulnerable to depression if you are exposed to strong stressors during childhood. I recommend watching the entire playlist, but I've linked to the punchline at the end of Behavioral Genetics II. I've linked to him discussing the heritability of plant IQ, followed by the heritability of depression example I alluded to earlier. https://youtu.be/RG5fN6KrDJE?t=3200 https://youtu.be/RG5fN6KrDJE?t=3200 Again, I recommend watching the entire lecture if you have an hour and a half, both lectures if you have 3 hours, or all the lectures if you have, like, 40 hours.
Bartweiss 8y ago
It's never a good sign when an article on the predictive power of genes manages to talk about Nazis before mentioning DNA. Among other issues, this seems like yet another case of someone confusing "environmental" with unpredictable or non-natal. An increasing appreciation of epigenetics is not the same as a dismissal of the role of genes. And a lot of the the other arguments are seriously misleading, like implying incomplete dominance is somehow a blow to our knowledge of genetics, or sleight of hand, like saying genes aren't 'primary' because something has to read them and implying that diminishes their effect.
mc32 8y ago
While it could be a concern in some societies with authoritarian regimes or ones with strong social influence on others, making things up to further a cause will in the end weaken it. It’s not a case of fake it till you make it.

ummonk 8y ago

Identical twins raised separately end up rather similar in adulthood. So human twins actually provides fairly strong evidence that genes substantially (though not exclusively) determine how we end up.

solveit 8y ago
They end up remarkably similar, but it turns that remarkably similar isn't nearly similar enough to be useful in most contexts. In fact, I think the biggest lesson of the social sciences is a deeper intuitive understanding of how individual variation will completely dominate any other statistical factor in anything made of people, and how fortunate we were that the physical sciences were much simpler.
- 1_over_n 8y ago
  Exactly. "Remarkably similar" != "Identical" (using the truest version of the word identical - exactly the same)
- philipov 8y ago
  Stanford's Youtube channel has a series of lectures for Robert Sapolsky's class on Human Behavioral Biology, and he spends a good amount of time on genetics there. The view he presents there is that there is no such thing as a gene FOR something, because the effect of a gene is a function of the environment in which it is expressed. For example, it's incorrect to think in terms of a gene for depression, but it is more reasonable to think of a gene that will make you vulnerable to depression if you are exposed to strong stressors during childhood. I recommend watching the entire playlist, but I've linked to the punchline at the end of Behavioral Genetics II. I've linked to him discussing the heritability of plant IQ, followed by the heritability of depression example I alluded to earlier. https://youtu.be/RG5fN6KrDJE?t=3200 https://youtu.be/RG5fN6KrDJE?t=3200 Again, I recommend watching the entire lecture if you have an hour and a half, both lectures if you have 3 hours, or all the lectures if you have, like, 40 hours.

Bartweiss 8y ago

It's never a good sign when an article on the predictive power of genes manages to talk about Nazis before mentioning DNA. Among other issues, this seems like yet another case of someone confusing "environmental" with unpredictable or non-natal. An increasing appreciation of epigenetics is not the same as a dismissal of the role of genes. And a lot of the the other arguments are seriously misleading, like implying incomplete dominance is somehow a blow to our knowledge of genetics, or sleight of hand, like saying genes aren't 'primary' because something has to read them and implying that diminishes their effect.

mc32 8y ago

While it could be a concern in some societies with authoritarian regimes or ones with strong social influence on others, making things up to further a cause will in the end weaken it. It’s not a case of fake it till you make it.