4 ms·

So how will society adapt when specific genetic variants inevitably are tied to predisposition for intelligence and behavior? ADHD, autism, BPD, as listed in t

So how will society adapt when specific genetic variants inevitably are tied to predisposition for intelligence and behavior? ADHD, autism, BPD, as listed in the article, are not specific conditions, but rather represent a range of behavioral and intellectual tendencies that are better described as clusters in high dimensional personality space. If there are already 300 genes mapped which influence this handful of conditions, that implies that we already know of specific genes which effectively influence behavior by shifting psychology around these clusters. And since genes are heritable, this has consequences for groups of people and their interactions in greater society. This may be an unpleasant question but if research proceeds in this field it is one that will have to be answered.

tom_ 7y ago
> inevitably Ladies and gentlemen, can we please stand for a moment and give a round of applause for this word. It's working so hard here.
- twomoretime 7y ago
  I don't know how to make this any simpler Genes influence complex behavioral tendencies (ADHD, BPD, Autism) -> genes are heritable -> behavioral predisposition is heritable -> different populations of people may be predisposed to different behaviors. We cant really ignore this outcome just because it has unpleasant implications for society. That's bad science and potentially leads to suboptimal social outcomes.
  - tom_ 7y ago
    Well I guess that's that, then, because I don't know how to make this any simpler either.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Twin studies are a thing and prove you have blinders on. For instance, identical twins raised apart are not always concordant for mental conditions, even, say, schizophrenia. Which is not to say that it's caused by upbringing, that's also an obsolete theory.
    - danlugo92 7y ago
      Sounds very interesting and weird. If schizophrenia is not caused by either genetics or upbringing, then what is it?
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        Well, in a sense, nothing is independent of genetics or upbringing, so how do you decide that something is caused by either one? Can it not be caused by either? Regardless, the obvious implication is something developmental or environmental is important, after conception, but not particularly related to parenting behavior.
    - twomoretime 7y ago
      >For instance, identical twins raised apart are not always concordant for mental conditions, The very same twin studies prove my point...no one is saying every person with Gene X behaves a certain way. But we do know for a fact that, say, person with Gene Y may be X% more likely to exhibit behavior Z. They also strongly suggest that intelligence is heritible. Do you also want to tell me that because twins don't look 100% identical that their appearances aren't correlated at all?
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        You might have heard that correlation isn't causation? It's a very common statement, that people think they know the meaning of. But the way it is always used is, this correlation isn't causation, because I don't like it, and that correlation is causation, because I do like it. In other words, special pleading. If something is not causative, which you seem to acknowledge in your example of "gene X", then why exactly do you attribute a correlation to something other than coincidence? What is coincidence, anyway? Einstein said coincidence is literally the only thing anyone ever experiences, in a literal mathematical/physical sense.
        twomoretime 7y ago
        Well if you consider all the entropy in the universe, our particular microstate is an indescribably rare coincidence... It's a matter of probability. Each if the following, individually, you'll agree, is rather probably correct: 1. Genes control brain structure 2. Brain structure controls predisposition toward cognitive macrostates (we classify them as pathologies) 3. Macrostates like BPD, ADHD, and Autism are proxies for specific behavioral tendencies 4. Genes are heritable Why this has taken so long to discern is the noise from 30-70% environmental influence. Point being there's far more than correlation here, there's a direct known mechanism.
red75prime 7y ago
I don't think it will influence course of events much. Governments will reluctantly allow genetic treatment of debilitating heritable conditions (nothing else, for obvious political reasons). And then brain-computer interfaces will make heritable component of intelligence less important.
- aiscapehumanity 7y ago
  Best comment in this whole thread, everyone else is parroting the usual responses. People do not grasp the potential of neural interfacing technologies, I get the genetic component is important metric more for holistic metrics of a population of community but it's only one layer and when the body is made more machinic and commodified it won't matter much what quality of birth stock (for the average)you come from but how well you've been augmented regardless.
- nine_k 7y ago
  Brain-computer interfaces won't do much to the structure of motivation and other traits that make certain genetically "more nerdy" types better predisposed to certain types of mental work. Much like easy and cheap computer-based DAWs and musical instruments did not make everyone a musician or a composer on equal footing.
  - aiscapehumanity 7y ago
    You can literally stimulate networks, you may even be able to chemically and topologically change networks with combined technologies. We are talking about brain interfaces of the future, obviously some of which may get more invasive yet safe, assuming that engineering around the sensitivity of the brain improves.
perl4ever 7y ago
According to the newsletter I just got in the mail about the latest mental health research, the genes linked to various mental differences and pathologies are pretty much all the regulatory type, which if I'm not mistaken is what they were recently calling "junk DNA" and is most of the genome. I don't think you can tell anything about what a branch or comparison instruction does by looking at the instruction itself.
- twomoretime 7y ago
  >the genes linked to various mental differences and pathologies are pretty much all the regulatory type, So are you suggesting that the "regulatory" type aren't inherited like normal genes? Why do we take it for granted that evolution stopped above the shoulders once we became homo sapien? >I don't think you can tell anything about what a branch or comparison instruction does by looking at the instruction itself. But you're not inheriting random branching statements, I imagine they tend to appear in certain regions of the genome and there influence similar pathways...which would make them valuable points of inference as well, just noisier.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "But you're not inheriting random branching statements, I imagine they tend to appear in certain regions of the genome and there influence similar pathways...which would make them valuable points of inference as well, just noisier." What profession are you in? Do you think this concept works for debugging software, or are you a non-programmer in healthcare?
hope-striker 7y ago
It is already known that there is some association between intelligence and, for example, race. The underlying causes, whether they're wealth disparities, cultural attitudes toward intelligence, or genetics, don't change whether it's right or wrong to discriminate by race. You seem to be insinuating something unpleasant, so I would very much appreciate if you could be explicit about what consequences you think this will have.
- twomoretime 7y ago
  >You seem to be insinuating something unpleasant The only insinuation is that I anticipate some people will squirm discussing this sensitive topic. But we are leaving a lot of science and philosophy on the table because of socially constructed boundaries. Are they appropriately positioned, or excessively constraining?

tom_ 7y ago

> inevitably Ladies and gentlemen, can we please stand for a moment and give a round of applause for this word. It's working so hard here.

twomoretime 7y ago
I don't know how to make this any simpler Genes influence complex behavioral tendencies (ADHD, BPD, Autism) -> genes are heritable -> behavioral predisposition is heritable -> different populations of people may be predisposed to different behaviors. We cant really ignore this outcome just because it has unpleasant implications for society. That's bad science and potentially leads to suboptimal social outcomes.
- tom_ 7y ago
  Well I guess that's that, then, because I don't know how to make this any simpler either.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Twin studies are a thing and prove you have blinders on. For instance, identical twins raised apart are not always concordant for mental conditions, even, say, schizophrenia. Which is not to say that it's caused by upbringing, that's also an obsolete theory.
  - danlugo92 7y ago
    Sounds very interesting and weird. If schizophrenia is not caused by either genetics or upbringing, then what is it?
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      Well, in a sense, nothing is independent of genetics or upbringing, so how do you decide that something is caused by either one? Can it not be caused by either? Regardless, the obvious implication is something developmental or environmental is important, after conception, but not particularly related to parenting behavior.
  - twomoretime 7y ago
    >For instance, identical twins raised apart are not always concordant for mental conditions, The very same twin studies prove my point...no one is saying every person with Gene X behaves a certain way. But we do know for a fact that, say, person with Gene Y may be X% more likely to exhibit behavior Z. They also strongly suggest that intelligence is heritible. Do you also want to tell me that because twins don't look 100% identical that their appearances aren't correlated at all?
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      You might have heard that correlation isn't causation? It's a very common statement, that people think they know the meaning of. But the way it is always used is, this correlation isn't causation, because I don't like it, and that correlation is causation, because I do like it. In other words, special pleading. If something is not causative, which you seem to acknowledge in your example of "gene X", then why exactly do you attribute a correlation to something other than coincidence? What is coincidence, anyway? Einstein said coincidence is literally the only thing anyone ever experiences, in a literal mathematical/physical sense.
      - twomoretime 7y ago
        Well if you consider all the entropy in the universe, our particular microstate is an indescribably rare coincidence... It's a matter of probability. Each if the following, individually, you'll agree, is rather probably correct: 1. Genes control brain structure 2. Brain structure controls predisposition toward cognitive macrostates (we classify them as pathologies) 3. Macrostates like BPD, ADHD, and Autism are proxies for specific behavioral tendencies 4. Genes are heritable Why this has taken so long to discern is the noise from 30-70% environmental influence. Point being there's far more than correlation here, there's a direct known mechanism.

red75prime 7y ago

I don't think it will influence course of events much. Governments will reluctantly allow genetic treatment of debilitating heritable conditions (nothing else, for obvious political reasons). And then brain-computer interfaces will make heritable component of intelligence less important.

aiscapehumanity 7y ago
Best comment in this whole thread, everyone else is parroting the usual responses. People do not grasp the potential of neural interfacing technologies, I get the genetic component is important metric more for holistic metrics of a population of community but it's only one layer and when the body is made more machinic and commodified it won't matter much what quality of birth stock (for the average)you come from but how well you've been augmented regardless.
nine_k 7y ago
Brain-computer interfaces won't do much to the structure of motivation and other traits that make certain genetically "more nerdy" types better predisposed to certain types of mental work. Much like easy and cheap computer-based DAWs and musical instruments did not make everyone a musician or a composer on equal footing.
- aiscapehumanity 7y ago
  You can literally stimulate networks, you may even be able to chemically and topologically change networks with combined technologies. We are talking about brain interfaces of the future, obviously some of which may get more invasive yet safe, assuming that engineering around the sensitivity of the brain improves.

perl4ever 7y ago

According to the newsletter I just got in the mail about the latest mental health research, the genes linked to various mental differences and pathologies are pretty much all the regulatory type, which if I'm not mistaken is what they were recently calling "junk DNA" and is most of the genome. I don't think you can tell anything about what a branch or comparison instruction does by looking at the instruction itself.

twomoretime 7y ago
>the genes linked to various mental differences and pathologies are pretty much all the regulatory type, So are you suggesting that the "regulatory" type aren't inherited like normal genes? Why do we take it for granted that evolution stopped above the shoulders once we became homo sapien? >I don't think you can tell anything about what a branch or comparison instruction does by looking at the instruction itself. But you're not inheriting random branching statements, I imagine they tend to appear in certain regions of the genome and there influence similar pathways...which would make them valuable points of inference as well, just noisier.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "But you're not inheriting random branching statements, I imagine they tend to appear in certain regions of the genome and there influence similar pathways...which would make them valuable points of inference as well, just noisier." What profession are you in? Do you think this concept works for debugging software, or are you a non-programmer in healthcare?

hope-striker 7y ago

It is already known that there is some association between intelligence and, for example, race. The underlying causes, whether they're wealth disparities, cultural attitudes toward intelligence, or genetics, don't change whether it's right or wrong to discriminate by race. You seem to be insinuating something unpleasant, so I would very much appreciate if you could be explicit about what consequences you think this will have.

twomoretime 7y ago
>You seem to be insinuating something unpleasant The only insinuation is that I anticipate some people will squirm discussing this sensitive topic. But we are leaving a lot of science and philosophy on the table because of socially constructed boundaries. Are they appropriately positioned, or excessively constraining?