4 ms·

Is there a proven role of genetics here or is this pseudoscientific determinism?

hackinthebochs 5y ago
It is pretty well established that educational attainment is significantly heritable [1]. Although less studied, there is evidence of significant heritability of interests as well [2] [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-017-0005-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-017-0005-6 [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8407707/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8407707/
- bsanr2 5y ago
  Heritability is not necessarily genetic, which is probably what he was getting at. Behavioral genetics is fairly controversial for being an entire field which begs the question. https://www.wichita.edu/academics/fairmount_college_of_liberal_arts_and_sciences/psychology/documents/MisbehavingScienceReview.pdf https://www.wichita.edu/academics/fairmount_college_of_liber... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/my-problem-with-e2809ctabooe2809d-behavioral-genetics-the-science-stinks/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/my-problem-...
  - hackinthebochs 5y ago
    Twin studies, adoption studies, and now GWAS studies are quickly putting an end to the idea of some significant but elusive environmental effect that accounts for heritability measures in exclusion to genes. Regarding the articles, I don't find them compelling. The author of the first one identifies himself as an emergentist, which is conceptually vacuous. The critique in the second article doesn't target the strongest of heritability studies regarding IQ, educational attainment, etc, which have been widely replicated.
    - bsanr2 5y ago
      All behavioral genetic studies heretofore rely on statistical analysis to draw correlations from datasets. Even ones that identiy specific SNPs are often unable to identify the physiological mechanism by which, say, Gene X influences intelligence. Without that, it's impossible to conclude that expression of Gene X isn't environmentally-influenced, and only has positive effects on intelligence when a certain diet is consumed, or sleep schedule kept, or common childhood illness avoided, for example. Another trait influenced by complex genetic and environmental factors, variability in adult height, has similarly been held to be highly heritable based on flawed studies with flawed construction, methodology, and assumptions, despite the fact that the average in many countries has changed on a time scale incompatible with a purely or even highly genetic basis. And height is easy to measure: get a ruler. Models of intelligence have shifted over the years because, speaking frankly, we don't really know how to measure it objectively. Your objection to the first is ad hominem, to the second erroneous. Belief in genetic determinism, as we conceive it, is at odds with the principles of skepticism and scientific inquiry. Like eugenics before it, it really, really wants to find a scientific basis to justify the state of the world we live in even as that state shifts under us. There are massive holes in both the execution of studies and the underlying rationale, and it's impossible to speak in good faith on the topic without acknowledging that.
      - hackinthebochs 5y ago
        >Without that, it's impossible to conclude that expression of Gene X isn't environmentally-influenced Conclusions do not require certainty. Science is about converging to the best explanation, not about unimpeachable conclusions. But when there are no plausible causal paths to explain measured correlations aside from, e.g., gene->phenotype causation, then causation along the available causal path is a valid tentative conclusion. > variability in adult height, has similarly been held to be highly heritable... despite the fact that the average in many countries has changed on a time scale incompatible with a purely or even highly genetic basis. I don't know how you can possibly think this supports your argument against genetic heritability. Height has a heritability measure of around 80%, which leaves 20% for environmental factors. There is no contradiction in noting that average height has increased over time when the current best analysis leaves significant room for variation due to environment. >despite the fact that the average in many countries has changed on a time scale incompatible with a purely or even highly genetic basis. Nothing you've said demonstrates this claim. >Your objection to the first is ad hominem Nope. Emergentism is his avowed conceptual framework, a lens through which he analyzes evidence and draws conclusions. But if the conceptual framework is vacuous, which it is, then that undermines the value of conclusions based on that framework.

It is pretty well established that educational attainment is significantly heritable [1]. Although less studied, there is evidence of significant heritability of interests as well [2] [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-017-0005-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-017-0005-6 [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8407707/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8407707/

bsanr2 5y ago
Heritability is not necessarily genetic, which is probably what he was getting at. Behavioral genetics is fairly controversial for being an entire field which begs the question. https://www.wichita.edu/academics/fairmount_college_of_liberal_arts_and_sciences/psychology/documents/MisbehavingScienceReview.pdf https://www.wichita.edu/academics/fairmount_college_of_liber... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/my-problem-with-e2809ctabooe2809d-behavioral-genetics-the-science-stinks/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/my-problem-...
- hackinthebochs 5y ago
  Twin studies, adoption studies, and now GWAS studies are quickly putting an end to the idea of some significant but elusive environmental effect that accounts for heritability measures in exclusion to genes. Regarding the articles, I don't find them compelling. The author of the first one identifies himself as an emergentist, which is conceptually vacuous. The critique in the second article doesn't target the strongest of heritability studies regarding IQ, educational attainment, etc, which have been widely replicated.
  - bsanr2 5y ago
    All behavioral genetic studies heretofore rely on statistical analysis to draw correlations from datasets. Even ones that identiy specific SNPs are often unable to identify the physiological mechanism by which, say, Gene X influences intelligence. Without that, it's impossible to conclude that expression of Gene X isn't environmentally-influenced, and only has positive effects on intelligence when a certain diet is consumed, or sleep schedule kept, or common childhood illness avoided, for example. Another trait influenced by complex genetic and environmental factors, variability in adult height, has similarly been held to be highly heritable based on flawed studies with flawed construction, methodology, and assumptions, despite the fact that the average in many countries has changed on a time scale incompatible with a purely or even highly genetic basis. And height is easy to measure: get a ruler. Models of intelligence have shifted over the years because, speaking frankly, we don't really know how to measure it objectively. Your objection to the first is ad hominem, to the second erroneous. Belief in genetic determinism, as we conceive it, is at odds with the principles of skepticism and scientific inquiry. Like eugenics before it, it really, really wants to find a scientific basis to justify the state of the world we live in even as that state shifts under us. There are massive holes in both the execution of studies and the underlying rationale, and it's impossible to speak in good faith on the topic without acknowledging that.
    - hackinthebochs 5y ago
      >Without that, it's impossible to conclude that expression of Gene X isn't environmentally-influenced Conclusions do not require certainty. Science is about converging to the best explanation, not about unimpeachable conclusions. But when there are no plausible causal paths to explain measured correlations aside from, e.g., gene->phenotype causation, then causation along the available causal path is a valid tentative conclusion. > variability in adult height, has similarly been held to be highly heritable... despite the fact that the average in many countries has changed on a time scale incompatible with a purely or even highly genetic basis. I don't know how you can possibly think this supports your argument against genetic heritability. Height has a heritability measure of around 80%, which leaves 20% for environmental factors. There is no contradiction in noting that average height has increased over time when the current best analysis leaves significant room for variation due to environment. >despite the fact that the average in many countries has changed on a time scale incompatible with a purely or even highly genetic basis. Nothing you've said demonstrates this claim. >Your objection to the first is ad hominem Nope. Emergentism is his avowed conceptual framework, a lens through which he analyzes evidence and draws conclusions. But if the conceptual framework is vacuous, which it is, then that undermines the value of conclusions based on that framework.