4 ms·

Do you really think higher income individuals have better genes? Overall? ...Or better in a narrow, rat-race sense? Genetic expression changes based on life

Do you really think higher income individuals have better genes? Overall? ...Or better in a narrow, rat-race sense? Genetic expression changes based on life experience doesn't it? I really don't think section 8 recipients are genetically inferior. Surely that isn't what you are saying, right? I'm not a biologist, but I would wager worse outcomes are mostly a result of continuous stress.

wpietri 7y ago
Yeah, the notion that rich people are intrinsically better is one that rich people have believed for centuries at least. Test scores have a lot to do with parental income, but as you say, that's strongly correlated with money and the things money buys.
- herostratus101 7y ago
  Lysenkoism is something that rich liberals continue to believe.
gtfratteus 7y ago
Of course they're genetically inferior. To argue otherwise would be to deny the theory of evolution. Income is one of the most important factors determining sexual value. Natural selection is clearly going to select for the traits that increase income.
nine_k 7y ago
Of course it's not the rich people being genetically superior. It's the chance of a genetically fortunate person (with a great nature-given voice, or intelligence, or strength and perseverance) to become rich through it, and maybe pass it to children. This chance is not very high, of course.
kaitai 7y ago
It's the genetic version of the prosperity gospel. If you're rich, that shows God loves you! Works for genetics too!
- herostratus101 7y ago
  Being a professional athlete is very lucrative. Do you think that professional athletes have the exact same genetic profile as the general public, and their professional success is entirely a result of their environment? It's funny how even the most restrained statements with any eugenic implications are outright rejected, but people don't bat an eye at Lysenkoism.
herostratus101 7y ago
If you believe that intelligence is at all heritable, then it would be an astonishing fact if low-income individuals had the same genetic distribution as high-income individuals. If you don't believe that intelligence is at all heritable, then I'm not sure how you would explain why it is that people with genetic defects like Down's syndrome have below average IQs.
- monetus 7y ago
  Again, not a biologist, but another HN user has told me phrenology is a better measure of intelligence than genes... Which would imply that genetics simply isn't suitable for accurately measuring any form of intelligence. In regards to arguing that genetic defects cause lower intelligence, you have to define intelligence. The rate at which certain, particular categories of knowledge are learned? The speed at which knowledge is utilized? Are autistic savants the most intelligent people to have ever lived? People with down syndrome seem adept at reading and responding to body language, in my experience. Precise empathy is certainly a form of intelligence. I think our intelligences are diffuse. In the abscence of how biological data relates to these, we are just pattern matching. After that, you have to ascertain what is even a factor in those intelligences: the total pool of genes we can draw from, the ways the genes express themselves on or off, or the delicate mosh-pit of biochemistry weaving our personality together. There are too many variables to control for, variables that aren't understood. It seems clear to me that environment dictates more than heritability of genetics. How much more is up for debate, but I'm not confident genes will be adequately contextualized in my lifetime.
  - herostratus101 7y ago
    Well, if another HN user told you that something with a genetic component is a better measure of intelligence (whatever the Hell that means) than genes... "People with Down's syndrome are not less intelligent than average" is the sort of thing that you can only say in an ultra-progressive environment. It would not be taken seriously by most people. Under any reasonable definition of intelligence, those with Down's syndrome have less of it on average. Your observation about multiple intelligences isn't novel or profound. The interesting thing about intelligence is that different kinds of intelligence are positively correlated (SAT math scores correlate with SAT verbal scores. Musical ability is correlated with mathematical ability. Etc. etc.) At this point you've just recited the standard college freshman talking points, which tells me that this isn't a subject that you're curious about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) I don't even think a statement like "It seems clear to me that environment dictates more than heritability of genetics" is intelligible. The idea of dividing it into X% genetics versus (100 - X)% environment betrays an incredibly naive understanding of the question.
alistairSH 7y ago
Definitely “better” in a narrow sense. Whatever traits (not just genetic, but economic, environmental, etc), taken together, make a parent successful, also tend to make offspring successful. Maybe the genetic component is far smaller than I realize?

wpietri 7y ago

Yeah, the notion that rich people are intrinsically better is one that rich people have believed for centuries at least. Test scores have a lot to do with parental income, but as you say, that's strongly correlated with money and the things money buys.

herostratus101 7y ago
Lysenkoism is something that rich liberals continue to believe.

gtfratteus 7y ago

Of course they're genetically inferior. To argue otherwise would be to deny the theory of evolution. Income is one of the most important factors determining sexual value. Natural selection is clearly going to select for the traits that increase income.

nine_k 7y ago

Of course it's not the rich people being genetically superior. It's the chance of a genetically fortunate person (with a great nature-given voice, or intelligence, or strength and perseverance) to become rich through it, and maybe pass it to children. This chance is not very high, of course.

kaitai 7y ago

It's the genetic version of the prosperity gospel. If you're rich, that shows God loves you! Works for genetics too!

herostratus101 7y ago
Being a professional athlete is very lucrative. Do you think that professional athletes have the exact same genetic profile as the general public, and their professional success is entirely a result of their environment? It's funny how even the most restrained statements with any eugenic implications are outright rejected, but people don't bat an eye at Lysenkoism.

herostratus101 7y ago

If you believe that intelligence is at all heritable, then it would be an astonishing fact if low-income individuals had the same genetic distribution as high-income individuals. If you don't believe that intelligence is at all heritable, then I'm not sure how you would explain why it is that people with genetic defects like Down's syndrome have below average IQs.

monetus 7y ago
Again, not a biologist, but another HN user has told me phrenology is a better measure of intelligence than genes... Which would imply that genetics simply isn't suitable for accurately measuring any form of intelligence. In regards to arguing that genetic defects cause lower intelligence, you have to define intelligence. The rate at which certain, particular categories of knowledge are learned? The speed at which knowledge is utilized? Are autistic savants the most intelligent people to have ever lived? People with down syndrome seem adept at reading and responding to body language, in my experience. Precise empathy is certainly a form of intelligence. I think our intelligences are diffuse. In the abscence of how biological data relates to these, we are just pattern matching. After that, you have to ascertain what is even a factor in those intelligences: the total pool of genes we can draw from, the ways the genes express themselves on or off, or the delicate mosh-pit of biochemistry weaving our personality together. There are too many variables to control for, variables that aren't understood. It seems clear to me that environment dictates more than heritability of genetics. How much more is up for debate, but I'm not confident genes will be adequately contextualized in my lifetime.
- herostratus101 7y ago
  Well, if another HN user told you that something with a genetic component is a better measure of intelligence (whatever the Hell that means) than genes... "People with Down's syndrome are not less intelligent than average" is the sort of thing that you can only say in an ultra-progressive environment. It would not be taken seriously by most people. Under any reasonable definition of intelligence, those with Down's syndrome have less of it on average. Your observation about multiple intelligences isn't novel or profound. The interesting thing about intelligence is that different kinds of intelligence are positively correlated (SAT math scores correlate with SAT verbal scores. Musical ability is correlated with mathematical ability. Etc. etc.) At this point you've just recited the standard college freshman talking points, which tells me that this isn't a subject that you're curious about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) I don't even think a statement like "It seems clear to me that environment dictates more than heritability of genetics" is intelligible. The idea of dividing it into X% genetics versus (100 - X)% environment betrays an incredibly naive understanding of the question.

alistairSH 7y ago

Definitely “better” in a narrow sense. Whatever traits (not just genetic, but economic, environmental, etc), taken together, make a parent successful, also tend to make offspring successful. Maybe the genetic component is far smaller than I realize?