3 ms·

> The personal story is over the top and this is not the definition of a liar. Well, if you take of the programmer's literal-minded hat for a second, this is p

> The personal story is over the top and this is not the definition of a liar. Well, if you take of the programmer's literal-minded hat for a second, this is probably representative of how the author feels: that she lied to her grandma. It might be incorrect but to dismiss her feelings of guilt like that is missing the point.

kryogen1c 7y ago
> It might be incorrect but to dismiss her feelings of guilt like that is missing the point. Only if you think the point of the article is feelings and not the dissemination of information. This is not a personal blog about relationships, its about the science of genetics. Drawing a distinction between the two is important and blurring the line furthers the spread of bad science.
- vanderZwan 7y ago
  Except that this isn't an article about scientific research done in a lab resulting in peer-reviewed publications, this is about personalized genetics sold as a product to people, by appealing to people-feelings. Like how they feel about their heritage. Which makes it absolutely relevant to the topic.
cracker_jacks 7y ago
I don't want to belabor a secondary point too much here. But I will add there's a big difference between feeling guilty for being wrong and feeling guilty for lying.
- throwanem 7y ago
  I agree she isn't a liar. She was lied to, by 23andMe, and that's an important difference. I don't doubt that the company's fine print attempts to disclaim all responsibility for whatever errors they make in their calls, no matter how glaring; I'm quite confident that 23andMe could claim someone's ancestry is 97% derived from thoroughbred horses, and if pressed on the obviously nonsense result, they'd refer to their legal boilerplate and claim that the fault lay with whoever was credulous and foolish enough to presume they provide a product of merchantable quality in exchange for the fee that they charge. What I don't see is why anyone needs to take them seriously in the attempt. And, as other commenters have pointed out, when we have companies in the same industry attempting to market genetic analysis for purposes from skin care to law enforcement, it's very much worth pausing for a moment, just to make sure that we aren't at risk of accidentally reinventing the justly discredited pseudoscience of eugenics, a century down the line.
- vanderZwan 7y ago
  If this is an irrelevant point according to you, then don't bring it up as if it somehow is extra evidence that the overall thesis of the article is incorrect.
  - dave_b 7y ago
    He didn’t say it’s irrelevant, he said it’s secondary. And he didn’t argue that the overall thesis of the article is incorrect, he argued that it did a bad job of addressing the topic.
bordercases 7y ago
How should you criticise feelings to provide the author with a more accurate perspective?

kryogen1c 7y ago

> It might be incorrect but to dismiss her feelings of guilt like that is missing the point. Only if you think the point of the article is feelings and not the dissemination of information. This is not a personal blog about relationships, its about the science of genetics. Drawing a distinction between the two is important and blurring the line furthers the spread of bad science.

vanderZwan 7y ago
Except that this isn't an article about scientific research done in a lab resulting in peer-reviewed publications, this is about personalized genetics sold as a product to people, by appealing to people-feelings. Like how they feel about their heritage. Which makes it absolutely relevant to the topic.

cracker_jacks 7y ago

I don't want to belabor a secondary point too much here. But I will add there's a big difference between feeling guilty for being wrong and feeling guilty for lying.

throwanem 7y ago
I agree she isn't a liar. She was lied to, by 23andMe, and that's an important difference. I don't doubt that the company's fine print attempts to disclaim all responsibility for whatever errors they make in their calls, no matter how glaring; I'm quite confident that 23andMe could claim someone's ancestry is 97% derived from thoroughbred horses, and if pressed on the obviously nonsense result, they'd refer to their legal boilerplate and claim that the fault lay with whoever was credulous and foolish enough to presume they provide a product of merchantable quality in exchange for the fee that they charge. What I don't see is why anyone needs to take them seriously in the attempt. And, as other commenters have pointed out, when we have companies in the same industry attempting to market genetic analysis for purposes from skin care to law enforcement, it's very much worth pausing for a moment, just to make sure that we aren't at risk of accidentally reinventing the justly discredited pseudoscience of eugenics, a century down the line.
vanderZwan 7y ago
If this is an irrelevant point according to you, then don't bring it up as if it somehow is extra evidence that the overall thesis of the article is incorrect.
- dave_b 7y ago
  He didn’t say it’s irrelevant, he said it’s secondary. And he didn’t argue that the overall thesis of the article is incorrect, he argued that it did a bad job of addressing the topic.

bordercases 7y ago

How should you criticise feelings to provide the author with a more accurate perspective?