3 ms·
It's obvious that that's not the point. > To suggest that macular degeneration has genetic causes is to make an empirically testable proposal; to suggest that
by a_shovel 5y ago
It's obvious that that's not the point.
> To suggest that macular degeneration has genetic causes is to make an empirically testable proposal; to suggest that “grit” or “openness to experience” has genetic causes is to make a category mistake.
> Whatever scientific evidence emerges regarding genetic populations, it won’t explain why some students do well on tests any more than it will explain why some social scientists construct essentialist theories of intelligence.
In other words, it is as much a mistake to search for biological causes for social differences as it is to search for astronomical causes, or quantum-mechanical causes. Yes, one could easily argue it's the "underlying reason" for the differences, but they're so far removed from the thing you're trying to explain that the theoretical framework of biology/astronomy/quantum mechanics doesn't allow you to draw any meaningful or relevant conclusions.
(And Harden's guilt is a bit more than "by association": "In her efforts to assure the reader that there’s no racism here, Harden tacitly—and sometimes not so tacitly—endorses the founding axiom of scientific racism since its inception in the eighteenth century, that human races are biologically distinct.")
- car_analogy 5y ago> To suggest that macular degeneration has genetic causes is to make an empirically testable proposal; to suggest that “grit” or “openness to experience” has genetic causes is to make a category mistake. Oh please spare me. They are both empirically testable, it in fact was tested, and found that According to twin studies, the Big Five personality traits have substantial heritable components explaining 40–60% of the variance - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068715/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068715/ A few more sources: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8776880/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8776880/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Heritability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#He...
- a_shovel 5y agoOkay, what you've done here is you've responded to a criticism of a particular type of study by linking to two examples of that kind of study and a Wikipedia section that cites one of those same studies. Forgive me if I feel like the article's criticisms have not been addressed.
- car_analogy 5y agoBecause it's not criticism. It's evidence-free dismissal of solid empirical and theoretical (e.g. the sibling post's Downs example) results, hidden behind meaningless language like "category error". Is it a "category error" to claim cats are not as intelligent as humans because of their genes? And the real reasons are socio-economical? Or does it only become a category error once applied to humans? It's sad that over 160 years after On the Origin of Species, we are still trying to exempt ourselves from nature. How little has changed.
- kaba0 5y agoHow is it that a serious decrease in intelligence can easily be attributed to genes then? Like, I would guess noone would claim that Down’s syndrome doesn’t impact intelligence negatively, yet we should believe that the other end of the same axis is not seriously dependent on genetics? I mean, I get that (as everything) it is not solely genetic, obviously a child not having apt social environment while growing up will fail to develop normal intelligence (like, won’t be able to learn to speak, etc). But going the other direction of intelligence doesn’t depend on genes is just bad science.