4 ms·

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 My point is that many people disregard environment and epigenetics and in my opinion that’s an outdated and politically motivated view.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
      - rowanG077 1y ago
        you claimed rich parents in a rich country trump genetics. I don't think in that scenario considering down syndrome is extreme. I don't think anyone here is claiming that DNA is everything there is too a person biological makeup. Epigenetic exists, destroying your lungs by smoking exists. I do actually thing on large scales that wealthy families on average will have common genetic traits that make them more likely to be wealthy. Intelligence, competitiveness, willingness to delay gratification are just a few I could think would help a lot. That really doesn't mean that if you or your family are not wealthy you can't have these traits. As with almost everything in this domain it's multivariate.

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
    - rowanG077 1y ago
      you claimed rich parents in a rich country trump genetics. I don't think in that scenario considering down syndrome is extreme. I don't think anyone here is claiming that DNA is everything there is too a person biological makeup. Epigenetic exists, destroying your lungs by smoking exists. I do actually thing on large scales that wealthy families on average will have common genetic traits that make them more likely to be wealthy. Intelligence, competitiveness, willingness to delay gratification are just a few I could think would help a lot. That really doesn't mean that if you or your family are not wealthy you can't have these traits. As with almost everything in this domain it's multivariate.