4 ms·
The title of this article should be, “We are exactly as determined by our genes as once thought, but we don’t know precisely how this works”. We can estimate h
by georgewfraser 8y ago
The title of this article should be, “We are exactly as determined by our genes as once thought, but we don’t know precisely how this works”.
We can estimate how genetically determined a trait is by comparing identical to non-identical twins, or by comparing full siblings to half siblings and adopted siblings. There is a long history of data in this area which is just as valid today as ever. This article points out that we know very little about how specific genes determine specific traits. True. But we can know that a trait is genetically determined without knowing how a trait is genetically determined.
- YUMad 8y agoWhile identical twins share same genes, they also share the environment in uterus. I wonder what would be the result of gestating identical twins in different wombs.
- infradig 8y agoOr just compare identical to non-identical twins?
- chongli 8y agoWe don't even have to do that. Just compare humans to mice or fruit flies or nematodes. Genes make all the difference there. If people can accept that genetics cause the huge variations between species, why not accept the small variations between individuals? Why this "100% nurture" fundamentalism?
- opwieurposiu 8y agoThe left abhors facts of genetics just as the right abhors facts of climate change. In both cases there is a lot of virtue signaling going on, they know that the science is not on their side but they can not admit it because to do so would get them cast out of their in-group.
- tormeh 8y agoI dunno. What if the right found out that poor people are poor because of genetics, luck and environment, i.e. no fault of their own, rather than laziness? Oh man, that'd be a problem, wouldn't it?
- opwieurposiu 8y agoOnce you account for "genetics, luck and environment" the only thing left is free will. I think you are absolutely correct, "Does free will exist?" is a huge problem for politics, philosophy, sociology etc.
- ahartmetz 8y agoMy position is that if it doesn't exist, it is a necessary fiction to keep our laws and social norms working. They are based on what feels just and right, the rationalization of which requires free will. I don't see how laws and social norms would work without the assumption of free will. I'm not saying it would be absolutely impossible.
- ListeningPie 8y agoI agree with you. We are determined by factors we do not control (genes, environment) The justification of criminal justice is to make an example to society that a behavior is unacceptable. Thus creating an environment where that behavior is discouraged. In my mind the environment is responsible for a criminal. The way we have chosen to punish their environment is to remove the individual from it. This brings shame to the family or splitting up a family or loss of income due to the person being removed. The person with the hardest punishment(in jail) is least responsible. In dictatorships they actually punish the family of the criminal, which is a contributing factor to how they can hold power. Everyone is more invested in everyone conforming. On the positive side, is parents feeling pride if their children succeed. We cannot give the success directly to the parents for raising their child, therefore they enjoy the success of their children by proxy, pride. This of course extends to every link being a product of their environment and thus, for now, we need the fiction of free will. How would a society that accepts there is no free will function? That would make a mind blowing sci-fi film or novel.