7 ms·

> The truth is that probably most successful people can't tell luck, serendipity and hard-work from wisdom. Times change, opportunities change etc. so how much

> The truth is that probably most successful people can't tell luck, serendipity and hard-work from wisdom. Times change, opportunities change etc. so how much is advice really worth? The ability to work hard is also always 100% luck. Humans do not control their DNA or what environment shaped them to be able and have the desire to work hard.

CivBase 5y ago
Are there any credible studies demonstrating a strong link between genetics and motivation/drive/work-ethic? I don't doubt that DNA plays a part, but I'm hesitant to accept claims that it's 100% genetic.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- xorfish 5y ago
  DNA is just one puzzle piece that explains human behavior, together with many other factors. Those factors are not yours to control. Even if you are able to influence some of them, the ability to do so is dependent on factors you do not control.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    That's a rather fatalist view to take - I don't actually disagree with it but being unable to control your development doesn't free you from responsibility for it. We don't actually control anything at a basic level - we are just responding to different environmental effects with the learned behaviors we got from earlier environmental effects - in that way we are just perpetuating machines that will echo observations from earlier times. That isn't to say we can only parrot what we've seen - we can compile quite a complex response from all the experiences we've garnered... but we are nothing except some genetic starter (which we can probably mostly write off as just experiences we gained before birth as a genetic super-organism) and experiences. That all said that still leaves us with our individuality, desire to act and responsibility. And it leaves us with as much control over our ability to act as any other control - you can accept that our actions are rather mechanical results of prior experiences but not reject the fact that they're still our actions.
    - xorfish 5y ago
      Biology and especially neurobiology has made huge steps to understanding the brain and how human behavior comes to be. DNA (Genes are only a very small portion of our DNA, the interesting stuff happens in the other 95% of our DNA) interacts with the prenatal environment, the culture you grow up, the relationship with your parents, the levels of hormones in your blood, how warm you feel, how long ago your last meal was and many more factors to form human behavior. > And it leaves us with as much control over our ability to act as any other control No, there is no fundamental ability to control. We have some illusion of control. Don't mistake this for saying that humans can't change, we just have no control over how we change. Judges that decide over parole won't attribute their decision on the last time they ate, even if it is the single most important factor to their decision. It will be interesting to observe how society will react to this in the next 50 years when the science will become harder and harder to deny.
      - edmundsauto 5y ago
        > Judges that decide over parole won't attribute their decision on the last time they ate, even if it is the single most important factor to their decision. This finding doesn't replicate[0]. In the original study, there was a more mundane explanation: "Defendants without representation have their hearings scheduled at the end of sessions, before breaks." You have much more confidence in the current research than I think is warranted. Genes are indeed a small portion of our DNA, but your statement that "the interesting stuff happens in the other 95%" is unbounded and poorly defined. Personally, I think we have some control over things, and probably less control than most people perceive themselves as happening. But this research is in its infancy and having trouble with basic replication, so holding a strong opinion is a recipe for making poor decisions off it. [0] https://www.annieduke.com/no-judges-dont-give-harsher-sentences-hungry-annies-newsletter-october-5-2018/ https://www.annieduke.com/no-judges-dont-give-harsher-senten...
        xorfish 5y ago
        Thanks for correcting the judge study. It seems that cases with a higher chance of success are also scheduled earlier as the time it takes is less certain. My understanding is that a portion of the remaining 95% are responsible for turning genes and whole chains of them on and off or something in between. There is no place in the physical world where this control could come from. The factors that influence are hugely complex and very hard to separate. Just because we do not understand how certain factors interact and influence our behavior doesn't mean we have control.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068715/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068715/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#:~:text=Early%20twin%20studies%20of%20adult,for%20late%20teens%20and%20adults https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#:~:text=Ear.... https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2002-firkowska-mankiewicz.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Kl5bYdDdF5LSyQT4lJigBw&scisig=AAGBfm2z77Un2pIk_4tTkGvYQdDwn-lRYQ&oi=scholar https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://www.gwern... So genetics plays a significant part in personality traits and iq. Having high conscientiousness is the trait that correlates with work ethic and drive. It's definitely not 100% but genes play a big part. Twin studies are cool - even though there's usually something tragic involved with twins separated at birth, it gives you an excellent way of assessing genetic influences on a huge array of factors.
- dudeman13 5y ago
  You can get there from the definition of phenotype. Doesn't work if you think humans are special and above biological definitions though :)
nsonha 5y ago
Is this just a thrown away observation or meant to be some sort of insight? Determinism isn't exactly useful as a personal guideline, or anything. So I don't know why some people keep digging that hole.
- vmception 5y ago
  It is insightful on how to direct your energy. For many people, some activities should remain enthusiast hobbies because it wont take them anywhere.
  - nsonha 5y ago
    it's not, it just tells you that everything is a waste of energy because none is of your control. I'm sure there are ways to interpret this as: this arbitrary list of things is achievable, the rest is out of your reach. But then it's your job to find out what those things are, the determinism "insight" is useless.
    - vmception 5y ago
      Its useful for me, and surely this or any sample size of 1 undermine your point as otherwise your point is unfalsifiable. I am familiar with a key difference here: Some people find nihilism to be demotivating Some people do not For me, it helps me remember to try to recognize my privileges, support systems and luck. I respect people that play the cards they are dealt. Any child prodigy with a lot of resources could just as easily done nothing with them, so the nihilistic approach more so helps me not resent people that won a birth lottery and also appreciate what I do before I forget and start giving generic success advice.
      - nsonha 5y ago
        I think I share this view with you, even though I am one of those who find it demotivating. "Justice, What's the right thing to do" is one of my favourite books. I'm sure you know it.
pier25 5y ago
It's an interesting point but I don't think it's valid. 1) We still don't really understand the effects of DNA on human behavior. 2) Environment is influential, but it's an influence not something that shapes you in stone forever and ever. Plus, there are all sorts of characters from all sorts of environments. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but I'd say it mostly comes down to a personal decision to nurture willpower.
- pm90 5y ago
  One of the best things about modern science is that we’re learning how different peoples minds work. It seems pretty clear that a lot of what has been attributed to lack of “willpower” is more accurately explained by differences in learning styles and access to social networks. Giving so much weight to this “willpower” thing seems misplaced in this light.
  - pier25 5y ago
    I'd like to read more about this. Can you recommend anything?
    - pm90 5y ago
      This article does a good job of explaining what recent studies have shown us: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/15/16863374/willpower-overrated-self-control-psychology https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/15/16863374/wi....
      - pier25 5y ago
        Thanks. Very interesting read. Still, it poses tons of questions. As the article suggests at some point, it could very well be that people who have decided to work harder have found they enjoy the work. So it could really begin with a personal decision and not some lucky random factor as a previous comment suggested.
        5y ago
imtringued 5y ago
I consider hard work to be a lazy substitute for figuring out what you want to do. Just fill your day with busy hard work and you don't have to think about what you want to do. If you knew what you wanted you wouldn't have to work so hard and even the hard work you have to do wouldn't feel very hard compared to what you want.

CivBase 5y ago

Are there any credible studies demonstrating a strong link between genetics and motivation/drive/work-ethic? I don't doubt that DNA plays a part, but I'm hesitant to accept claims that it's 100% genetic.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
xorfish 5y ago
DNA is just one puzzle piece that explains human behavior, together with many other factors. Those factors are not yours to control. Even if you are able to influence some of them, the ability to do so is dependent on factors you do not control.
- munk-a 5y ago
  That's a rather fatalist view to take - I don't actually disagree with it but being unable to control your development doesn't free you from responsibility for it. We don't actually control anything at a basic level - we are just responding to different environmental effects with the learned behaviors we got from earlier environmental effects - in that way we are just perpetuating machines that will echo observations from earlier times. That isn't to say we can only parrot what we've seen - we can compile quite a complex response from all the experiences we've garnered... but we are nothing except some genetic starter (which we can probably mostly write off as just experiences we gained before birth as a genetic super-organism) and experiences. That all said that still leaves us with our individuality, desire to act and responsibility. And it leaves us with as much control over our ability to act as any other control - you can accept that our actions are rather mechanical results of prior experiences but not reject the fact that they're still our actions.
  - xorfish 5y ago
    Biology and especially neurobiology has made huge steps to understanding the brain and how human behavior comes to be. DNA (Genes are only a very small portion of our DNA, the interesting stuff happens in the other 95% of our DNA) interacts with the prenatal environment, the culture you grow up, the relationship with your parents, the levels of hormones in your blood, how warm you feel, how long ago your last meal was and many more factors to form human behavior. > And it leaves us with as much control over our ability to act as any other control No, there is no fundamental ability to control. We have some illusion of control. Don't mistake this for saying that humans can't change, we just have no control over how we change. Judges that decide over parole won't attribute their decision on the last time they ate, even if it is the single most important factor to their decision. It will be interesting to observe how society will react to this in the next 50 years when the science will become harder and harder to deny.
    - edmundsauto 5y ago
      > Judges that decide over parole won't attribute their decision on the last time they ate, even if it is the single most important factor to their decision. This finding doesn't replicate[0]. In the original study, there was a more mundane explanation: "Defendants without representation have their hearings scheduled at the end of sessions, before breaks." You have much more confidence in the current research than I think is warranted. Genes are indeed a small portion of our DNA, but your statement that "the interesting stuff happens in the other 95%" is unbounded and poorly defined. Personally, I think we have some control over things, and probably less control than most people perceive themselves as happening. But this research is in its infancy and having trouble with basic replication, so holding a strong opinion is a recipe for making poor decisions off it. [0] https://www.annieduke.com/no-judges-dont-give-harsher-sentences-hungry-annies-newsletter-october-5-2018/ https://www.annieduke.com/no-judges-dont-give-harsher-senten...
      - xorfish 5y ago
        Thanks for correcting the judge study. It seems that cases with a higher chance of success are also scheduled earlier as the time it takes is less certain. My understanding is that a portion of the remaining 95% are responsible for turning genes and whole chains of them on and off or something in between. There is no place in the physical world where this control could come from. The factors that influence are hugely complex and very hard to separate. Just because we do not understand how certain factors interact and influence our behavior doesn't mean we have control.
robbedpeter 5y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068715/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068715/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#:~:text=Early%20twin%20studies%20of%20adult,for%20late%20teens%20and%20adults https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#:~:text=Ear.... https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2002-firkowska-mankiewicz.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Kl5bYdDdF5LSyQT4lJigBw&scisig=AAGBfm2z77Un2pIk_4tTkGvYQdDwn-lRYQ&oi=scholar https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://www.gwern... So genetics plays a significant part in personality traits and iq. Having high conscientiousness is the trait that correlates with work ethic and drive. It's definitely not 100% but genes play a big part. Twin studies are cool - even though there's usually something tragic involved with twins separated at birth, it gives you an excellent way of assessing genetic influences on a huge array of factors.
dudeman13 5y ago
You can get there from the definition of phenotype. Doesn't work if you think humans are special and above biological definitions though :)

nsonha 5y ago

Is this just a thrown away observation or meant to be some sort of insight? Determinism isn't exactly useful as a personal guideline, or anything. So I don't know why some people keep digging that hole.

vmception 5y ago
It is insightful on how to direct your energy. For many people, some activities should remain enthusiast hobbies because it wont take them anywhere.
- nsonha 5y ago
  it's not, it just tells you that everything is a waste of energy because none is of your control. I'm sure there are ways to interpret this as: this arbitrary list of things is achievable, the rest is out of your reach. But then it's your job to find out what those things are, the determinism "insight" is useless.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Its useful for me, and surely this or any sample size of 1 undermine your point as otherwise your point is unfalsifiable. I am familiar with a key difference here: Some people find nihilism to be demotivating Some people do not For me, it helps me remember to try to recognize my privileges, support systems and luck. I respect people that play the cards they are dealt. Any child prodigy with a lot of resources could just as easily done nothing with them, so the nihilistic approach more so helps me not resent people that won a birth lottery and also appreciate what I do before I forget and start giving generic success advice.
    - nsonha 5y ago
      I think I share this view with you, even though I am one of those who find it demotivating. "Justice, What's the right thing to do" is one of my favourite books. I'm sure you know it.

pier25 5y ago

It's an interesting point but I don't think it's valid. 1) We still don't really understand the effects of DNA on human behavior. 2) Environment is influential, but it's an influence not something that shapes you in stone forever and ever. Plus, there are all sorts of characters from all sorts of environments. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but I'd say it mostly comes down to a personal decision to nurture willpower.

pm90 5y ago
One of the best things about modern science is that we’re learning how different peoples minds work. It seems pretty clear that a lot of what has been attributed to lack of “willpower” is more accurately explained by differences in learning styles and access to social networks. Giving so much weight to this “willpower” thing seems misplaced in this light.
- pier25 5y ago
  I'd like to read more about this. Can you recommend anything?
  - pm90 5y ago
    This article does a good job of explaining what recent studies have shown us: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/15/16863374/willpower-overrated-self-control-psychology https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/15/16863374/wi....
    - pier25 5y ago
      Thanks. Very interesting read. Still, it poses tons of questions. As the article suggests at some point, it could very well be that people who have decided to work harder have found they enjoy the work. So it could really begin with a personal decision and not some lucky random factor as a previous comment suggested.
      - 5y ago

imtringued 5y ago

I consider hard work to be a lazy substitute for figuring out what you want to do. Just fill your day with busy hard work and you don't have to think about what you want to do. If you knew what you wanted you wouldn't have to work so hard and even the hard work you have to do wouldn't feel very hard compared to what you want.