4 ms·

that’s what I mean by ‘maxis’ — the people that rarely, if ever, acknowledge epigenetics. They focus entirely on DNA / Darwinian evolutionary theory from centu

that’s what I mean by ‘maxis’ — the people that rarely, if ever, acknowledge epigenetics. They focus entirely on DNA / Darwinian evolutionary theory from centuries ago, ignoring environmental evolution, or to put it another way — evolution that happens as part of your lived experience opening the door to the heretical idea that they are where they are because of birth luck

rowanG077 1y ago
Isn't "good" DNA the ultimate form of birth luck? An extreme example: down syndrome. No matter what you let the average person with down syndrome experience experience, they will never keep up intellectually. I still don't really understand what you are really saying here, and how epigenetics factor into it. I'm not an expert, but from what I understand epigenetics are essentially the sauce on top.
- ueueejdnsk 1y ago
  No rich parents in a rich country are
  - rowanG077 1y ago
    So you'd take having down syndrome in the US with rich parents over being born with Paul Allen level intelligence to poor parents in the US? That's certainly an argument.
    - ueueejdnsk 1y ago
      That’s a straw man of my argument. Born with Down Syndrome in the US versus Paul Allen level intelligence in Gaza?
      - rowanG077 1y ago
        You didn't say war torn prison. You said not rich. Paul Allen in Rwanda vs down syndrome in the US. For sure I'd choose Paul Allen in Rwanda.
        ueueejdnsk 1y ago
        You took an extreme position with Down Syndrome, and so it feels odd to take issue with an extreme position on country/geographic location Would women excluded from higher education, or people who live in rural communities without access to much education at all likewise be unfair? How about tribes that live in forests, or other extremely isolated places? I think taking extremes distracts from the majority of people the people were talking about but they do indicate something, surely. That environment can dominate And so we’re back to arguing over degrees. My point is that many people disregard environment and epigenetics and in my opinion that’s an outdated and politically motivated view. See the other comment trying to bring in left/right categorisations. How about we look at this from another angle. I think these are both broadly agreed scientifically: 1. DNA can have strong correlations with human attributes 2. Gene expression can differ based on the environment 3. The data encoded in DNA can’t encode the entire variability of a human’s biology by a significant margin I think, taken together, it feels quite bizarre to conclude that DNA dominates the construction of a person. It seems more plausible that DNA in combination with other biological processes affects the biological makeup of a person — epigenetic gene expression, diet, education, traumatic experiences, exercise, divergent access to resources and opportunities etc. It feels ridiculous to not think that the environment can dominate, and so we’re simply talking about to what extent you can discount the environment. Clearly you agree being in a war torn country is negative, and indeed being imprisoned. So really what we’re arguing over is a narrower definition — rich vs poor in a country like the US. Even with that, the money you are born with isn’t encoded in your DNA and so how do we explain the correlation between rich family’s kids being more successful than poor families. Let’s restrict that to just in America. If environment is dominated by DNA you’d have to believe the money you are born into is a function of your ancestral DNA, but that’s kinda of ludicrous because we know some family groups couldn’t amass wealth for the same period as others due to war and other violence excluding them from the same process, at least for the same period of time. The argument that DNA dominates, to my mind, can only hold if you normalise the environment with a basic standard of living for all, as best you can. If DNA dominates then the same genetic winners will persist even if you cancel any environmental privilege. It’s rare to see DNA maxis advocate for equality of opportunity, which lends further weight to the idea that even they don’t truly believe in their exceptional genetics Long answer, but I find the Darwinian argument over used and under powered to explain anything relevant to modern society
- aydyn 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ueueejdnsk 1y ago
    Check out the scientific field of epigenetics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics My views on monetary versus fiscal policy, public versus private ownership, markets versus planning, methods of government and economic production are not relevant. If you think “right wing” creates a better environment or “left wing” is independent of whether the environment dominates DNA/Darwinian ideas about being born superior
    - aydyn 1y ago
      I published on epigenetics extensively. Claiming that the existence of non-genetic inheritance supports or refutes a political ideology is sophistry. Or trolling.

rowanG077 1y ago

Isn't "good" DNA the ultimate form of birth luck? An extreme example: down syndrome. No matter what you let the average person with down syndrome experience experience, they will never keep up intellectually. I still don't really understand what you are really saying here, and how epigenetics factor into it. I'm not an expert, but from what I understand epigenetics are essentially the sauce on top.

ueueejdnsk 1y ago
No rich parents in a rich country are
- rowanG077 1y ago
  So you'd take having down syndrome in the US with rich parents over being born with Paul Allen level intelligence to poor parents in the US? That's certainly an argument.
  - ueueejdnsk 1y ago
    That’s a straw man of my argument. Born with Down Syndrome in the US versus Paul Allen level intelligence in Gaza?
    - rowanG077 1y ago
      You didn't say war torn prison. You said not rich. Paul Allen in Rwanda vs down syndrome in the US. For sure I'd choose Paul Allen in Rwanda.
      - ueueejdnsk 1y ago
        You took an extreme position with Down Syndrome, and so it feels odd to take issue with an extreme position on country/geographic location Would women excluded from higher education, or people who live in rural communities without access to much education at all likewise be unfair? How about tribes that live in forests, or other extremely isolated places? I think taking extremes distracts from the majority of people the people were talking about but they do indicate something, surely. That environment can dominate And so we’re back to arguing over degrees. My point is that many people disregard environment and epigenetics and in my opinion that’s an outdated and politically motivated view. See the other comment trying to bring in left/right categorisations. How about we look at this from another angle. I think these are both broadly agreed scientifically: 1. DNA can have strong correlations with human attributes 2. Gene expression can differ based on the environment 3. The data encoded in DNA can’t encode the entire variability of a human’s biology by a significant margin I think, taken together, it feels quite bizarre to conclude that DNA dominates the construction of a person. It seems more plausible that DNA in combination with other biological processes affects the biological makeup of a person — epigenetic gene expression, diet, education, traumatic experiences, exercise, divergent access to resources and opportunities etc. It feels ridiculous to not think that the environment can dominate, and so we’re simply talking about to what extent you can discount the environment. Clearly you agree being in a war torn country is negative, and indeed being imprisoned. So really what we’re arguing over is a narrower definition — rich vs poor in a country like the US. Even with that, the money you are born with isn’t encoded in your DNA and so how do we explain the correlation between rich family’s kids being more successful than poor families. Let’s restrict that to just in America. If environment is dominated by DNA you’d have to believe the money you are born into is a function of your ancestral DNA, but that’s kinda of ludicrous because we know some family groups couldn’t amass wealth for the same period as others due to war and other violence excluding them from the same process, at least for the same period of time. The argument that DNA dominates, to my mind, can only hold if you normalise the environment with a basic standard of living for all, as best you can. If DNA dominates then the same genetic winners will persist even if you cancel any environmental privilege. It’s rare to see DNA maxis advocate for equality of opportunity, which lends further weight to the idea that even they don’t truly believe in their exceptional genetics Long answer, but I find the Darwinian argument over used and under powered to explain anything relevant to modern society
aydyn 1y ago
[flagged]
- ueueejdnsk 1y ago
  Check out the scientific field of epigenetics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics My views on monetary versus fiscal policy, public versus private ownership, markets versus planning, methods of government and economic production are not relevant. If you think “right wing” creates a better environment or “left wing” is independent of whether the environment dominates DNA/Darwinian ideas about being born superior
  - aydyn 1y ago
    I published on epigenetics extensively. Claiming that the existence of non-genetic inheritance supports or refutes a political ideology is sophistry. Or trolling.