5 ms·

Please don't use foul language. I'm genuinely interested in komali2's answer. I'm not pulling some rhetorical trick or something. Please follow HN guidelines an

by xamuel 7y ago

Please don't use foul language. I'm genuinely interested in komali2's answer. I'm not pulling some rhetorical trick or something. Please follow HN guidelines and give fellow commenters the benefit of the doubt. There are obviously many causes of under-representation of minorities, not least of which is that if they were more fully represented, then that would help them to pass their genes along and thus over a long period of time, they would cease to BE minorities to begin with.

chris_mc 7y ago
No, I will not be civil with someone saying, literally, that minorities are less genetically able to do certain jobs. Fuck off.
- xamuel 7y ago
  Reverse the cause and effect. I am not saying "minorities are less genetically able to do certain jobs". Rather, I (and Charles Darwin) are saying "people less genetically able to do certain jobs tend to become minorities". That's Biology 101, or it would be if there was less politicization of science!
  - komali2 7y ago
    >"people less genetically able to do certain jobs tend to become minorities" This is a sidenote to my longer comment - I've never seen evidence, ever, of a genetic component to the ability to do a certain job, that surpasses a statistical margin of error.
    - rosterface 7y ago
      That’s not true. Arguably all professional athletics require a very large genetic component. Good luck in the NBA if you’re 5’1” tall. I think the ability to accurately identify tones is also largely genetic, so professional musicians are probably on the list as well. My guess is that software development also has genetic mental requirements but there’s no definitive answer for that. Probably a lot of jobs have genetic components whether that’s cognitive speed, athletic ability, ability to focus, fine motor control, a particular enhanced sense...
      - komali2 7y ago
        >Good luck in the NBA if you’re 5’1” tall. Sure, you're not wrong, but you've just stated an individual trait, not a population one. Try now to make the argument that someone is more "likely" to be pro NBA if they're of some arbitrarily chosen genetic background. You will run into the fact that 1. You will be totally unable to create rigid constraints for your genetic background, and 2. Statistical variance will be so high that you won't actually be generating useful information anyway (i.e. an effective predictor). So yea, maybe one couple of tall people could have a tall kid and of course the kid has a better chance at the NBA than a short kid (sort of maybe. He could end up a footsie god, it's happened before and we have no way of predicting when it will happen next), but they might have had a short kid despite their genetic factors so the point is moot. >My guess is that software development also has genetic mental requirements but there’s no definitive answer for that You may guess all you want but I carefully avoid any feelings that are not fact based and don't generate any useful planning or information for me so I disagree with this point. There's simply no evidence of this and I don't see how this information could be significant enough to have an effect on any decisions I make in life (for example, hiring decisions).
        rosterface 7y ago
        > Sure, you're not wrong, but you've just stated an individual trait, not a population one. No, I’ve stated a population trait. The population of professional athletes. Not all tall people can be NBA stars but all NBA stars are tall. Being genetically athletic is a prerequisite to professional sports not a guarantee that one can become a professional athlete. Being genetically unathletic does disqualify you from the profession though. > I don't see how this information could be significant enough to have an effect on any decisions I make in life (for example, hiring decisions). You’ve been advocating strongly for your position so I’m not sure it makes sense to just discount the opposition as useless. At the very least this seems like a great field for further study.
        komali2 7y ago
        Apparently I forgot how to use this website and accidentally replied to myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19914508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19914508

by xamuel 7y ago

chris_mc 7y ago

No, I will not be civil with someone saying, literally, that minorities are less genetically able to do certain jobs. Fuck off.

xamuel 7y ago
Reverse the cause and effect. I am not saying "minorities are less genetically able to do certain jobs". Rather, I (and Charles Darwin) are saying "people less genetically able to do certain jobs tend to become minorities". That's Biology 101, or it would be if there was less politicization of science!
- komali2 7y ago
  >"people less genetically able to do certain jobs tend to become minorities" This is a sidenote to my longer comment - I've never seen evidence, ever, of a genetic component to the ability to do a certain job, that surpasses a statistical margin of error.
  - rosterface 7y ago
    That’s not true. Arguably all professional athletics require a very large genetic component. Good luck in the NBA if you’re 5’1” tall. I think the ability to accurately identify tones is also largely genetic, so professional musicians are probably on the list as well. My guess is that software development also has genetic mental requirements but there’s no definitive answer for that. Probably a lot of jobs have genetic components whether that’s cognitive speed, athletic ability, ability to focus, fine motor control, a particular enhanced sense...
    - komali2 7y ago
      >Good luck in the NBA if you’re 5’1” tall. Sure, you're not wrong, but you've just stated an individual trait, not a population one. Try now to make the argument that someone is more "likely" to be pro NBA if they're of some arbitrarily chosen genetic background. You will run into the fact that 1. You will be totally unable to create rigid constraints for your genetic background, and 2. Statistical variance will be so high that you won't actually be generating useful information anyway (i.e. an effective predictor). So yea, maybe one couple of tall people could have a tall kid and of course the kid has a better chance at the NBA than a short kid (sort of maybe. He could end up a footsie god, it's happened before and we have no way of predicting when it will happen next), but they might have had a short kid despite their genetic factors so the point is moot. >My guess is that software development also has genetic mental requirements but there’s no definitive answer for that You may guess all you want but I carefully avoid any feelings that are not fact based and don't generate any useful planning or information for me so I disagree with this point. There's simply no evidence of this and I don't see how this information could be significant enough to have an effect on any decisions I make in life (for example, hiring decisions).
      - rosterface 7y ago
        > Sure, you're not wrong, but you've just stated an individual trait, not a population one. No, I’ve stated a population trait. The population of professional athletes. Not all tall people can be NBA stars but all NBA stars are tall. Being genetically athletic is a prerequisite to professional sports not a guarantee that one can become a professional athlete. Being genetically unathletic does disqualify you from the profession though. > I don't see how this information could be significant enough to have an effect on any decisions I make in life (for example, hiring decisions). You’ve been advocating strongly for your position so I’m not sure it makes sense to just discount the opposition as useless. At the very least this seems like a great field for further study.
        komali2 7y ago
        Apparently I forgot how to use this website and accidentally replied to myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19914508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19914508