3 ms·

If you read a decent amount of genetics research, you usually end up discovering some conclusions that are politically unacceptable. Even a comment as bland as

by lacker 7y ago

If you read a decent amount of genetics research, you usually end up discovering some conclusions that are politically unacceptable. Even a comment as bland as yours, you can see some people consider it Hitlerian. But at the same time plenty of people do read genetics research and perform cutting edge experiments that advance the state of the art. It is acceptable to do these things, as long as you use enough academic jargon that laymen and politicians can't understand what you're saying.

ajross 7y ago
You have an example of something politically unacceptable revealed via "genetics research"?
- rpmisms 7y ago
  You can tell people's race by their DNA, meaning that there are genetic differences caused by race? Saying that is unacceptable in many spheres today.
  - bolzano 7y ago
    No, you can't because "race" isn't a useful or well defined term or object and doesn't apply (is incommensurable) to genetics. Worse it comes absolutely loaded with social and political implications. It doesn't describe anything we can really point to, but is just a highly charged, culturally variable label we place on a cluster of outward appearances (e.g. excess or lack of melanin, hair or eye color, height). You might be able to tell if a particular individual is likely to have a lack of melanin or blue eyes from DNA, but you can't say genetic differences are caused by race. That in the famous words of Pauli is not even wrong. It's a category error, and even if it were useful it also inverts the causality. We apply the label "race" to a cluster of possibly DNA influenced outward markers. We humans cause "race" and apply it to people. Not genetics. Using a poorly defined term like race in an argument like this is worse than just poor reasoning. It will confuse people at best and cause harm at worst. It's not unacceptable because people are afraid of the truth or something. It's unacceptable because it's incoherent, vacuous and empty. It adds nothing to the discourse.
    - rpmisms 7y ago
      It shouldn't be unacceptable at all, because it's a loose term that predates DNA testing and identity politics. It's simply a descriptive tag, like tall or short.
      - ajross 7y ago
        If it's "simply a descriptive tag", then why are you insisting that truths about it are being revealed by rigorous (yet... undiscussable) science? Either you're making a scientific point or you're just complaining that people get upset when you discuss race. Which is it?
HorizonXP 7y ago
I'm not exactly sure why this is controversial at all. And I think most of us know and believe this to be fact. I am 5'10" tall, born and raised in Western society. I am taller than my most of my ancestors, but only marginally taller than my father. He grew up in India, but his family was non-vegetarian in a village of pure vegetarians. We might have been able to be a little taller if we understood nutrition a bit better, but it's probably within an inch or so. Our height is limited by genetics, not by environment. It stands to reason that if physical attributes like height are subject to genetic determinism, aspects of our brain & mind should be too. Now, comparing brains to height is very reductive, since the brain is infinitely more complex. But there's a probably a pretty good reason why my father and I have very good memories, and are fairly intelligent people. But we're also not superstar athletes, or great artists. Genetics and environment have optimized our brains in a certain way. And I'm already seeing the same traits in my 1 year old son. But isn't that the beauty of genetic determinism? Isn't that the beauty of all of us having vastly different life experiences? I don't lament the fact that I don't have the genetics of Usain Bolt, but I can admire and appreciate his prowess. Similarly, I don't lament the fact that I'm not a great creative like Picasso or Mozart. Something about their genetics and environment allowed them to achieve greatness in areas I am not capable of. And that's fantastic, because our society is enriched because of this diversity. I think a society that celebrates the individual, gives them the resources and environment to achieve whatever they're capable of, and thus, reach the limits of their own genetics is one I'd like to live in. Realistically, most of us are not even close to be limited by our genetics, but man, how awesome would it be if we were?
- seppel 7y ago
  > It stands to reason that if physical attributes like height are subject to genetic determinism, aspects of our brain & mind should be too. And if you don't believe in creationism and also don't believe that intelligence is subject to evolution, then you need some very good explanation where intelligence comes from in the first place.
codingslave 7y ago
Yeah this is my point exactly. A staggering amount is known about human behavior and where it comes from, most of it is just sitting in PhD level books at college libraries. Most will keep their head in the sand, best not look at something which tears apart my philosophies on society and life...

by lacker 7y ago

ajross 7y ago

You have an example of something politically unacceptable revealed via "genetics research"?

rpmisms 7y ago
You can tell people's race by their DNA, meaning that there are genetic differences caused by race? Saying that is unacceptable in many spheres today.
- bolzano 7y ago
  No, you can't because "race" isn't a useful or well defined term or object and doesn't apply (is incommensurable) to genetics. Worse it comes absolutely loaded with social and political implications. It doesn't describe anything we can really point to, but is just a highly charged, culturally variable label we place on a cluster of outward appearances (e.g. excess or lack of melanin, hair or eye color, height). You might be able to tell if a particular individual is likely to have a lack of melanin or blue eyes from DNA, but you can't say genetic differences are caused by race. That in the famous words of Pauli is not even wrong. It's a category error, and even if it were useful it also inverts the causality. We apply the label "race" to a cluster of possibly DNA influenced outward markers. We humans cause "race" and apply it to people. Not genetics. Using a poorly defined term like race in an argument like this is worse than just poor reasoning. It will confuse people at best and cause harm at worst. It's not unacceptable because people are afraid of the truth or something. It's unacceptable because it's incoherent, vacuous and empty. It adds nothing to the discourse.
  - rpmisms 7y ago
    It shouldn't be unacceptable at all, because it's a loose term that predates DNA testing and identity politics. It's simply a descriptive tag, like tall or short.
    - ajross 7y ago
      If it's "simply a descriptive tag", then why are you insisting that truths about it are being revealed by rigorous (yet... undiscussable) science? Either you're making a scientific point or you're just complaining that people get upset when you discuss race. Which is it?

HorizonXP 7y ago

I'm not exactly sure why this is controversial at all. And I think most of us know and believe this to be fact. I am 5'10" tall, born and raised in Western society. I am taller than my most of my ancestors, but only marginally taller than my father. He grew up in India, but his family was non-vegetarian in a village of pure vegetarians. We might have been able to be a little taller if we understood nutrition a bit better, but it's probably within an inch or so. Our height is limited by genetics, not by environment. It stands to reason that if physical attributes like height are subject to genetic determinism, aspects of our brain & mind should be too. Now, comparing brains to height is very reductive, since the brain is infinitely more complex. But there's a probably a pretty good reason why my father and I have very good memories, and are fairly intelligent people. But we're also not superstar athletes, or great artists. Genetics and environment have optimized our brains in a certain way. And I'm already seeing the same traits in my 1 year old son. But isn't that the beauty of genetic determinism? Isn't that the beauty of all of us having vastly different life experiences? I don't lament the fact that I don't have the genetics of Usain Bolt, but I can admire and appreciate his prowess. Similarly, I don't lament the fact that I'm not a great creative like Picasso or Mozart. Something about their genetics and environment allowed them to achieve greatness in areas I am not capable of. And that's fantastic, because our society is enriched because of this diversity. I think a society that celebrates the individual, gives them the resources and environment to achieve whatever they're capable of, and thus, reach the limits of their own genetics is one I'd like to live in. Realistically, most of us are not even close to be limited by our genetics, but man, how awesome would it be if we were?

seppel 7y ago
> It stands to reason that if physical attributes like height are subject to genetic determinism, aspects of our brain & mind should be too. And if you don't believe in creationism and also don't believe that intelligence is subject to evolution, then you need some very good explanation where intelligence comes from in the first place.

codingslave 7y ago

Yeah this is my point exactly. A staggering amount is known about human behavior and where it comes from, most of it is just sitting in PhD level books at college libraries. Most will keep their head in the sand, best not look at something which tears apart my philosophies on society and life...