3 ms·

> 2. Americans are less risk-averse because Americans are mostly descendants of immigrants. And immigrants are more likely to have a less risk-averse DNA. Do y

by Athas 13y ago

> 2. Americans are less risk-averse because Americans are mostly descendants of immigrants. And immigrants are more likely to have a less risk-averse DNA. Do you have any evidence that this is a genetic trait, and not a cultural factor? I have never heard this postulated before, but it would certainly be interesting if true.

RivieraKid 13y ago
No, this is just an idea that occured to me a long time ago in school, it may be completely wrong.
- Dewie 13y ago
  This is the great thing about the pop psychology part of evolutionary psychology. Now everyone can make up any theory that they want relating to genetics, and just support it with their own arguments and/or common sense - no empirical science or investigation needed on their part. And now just say 'genetics' and their argument sounds like it came from some hard-ish science, and was not just conjured up by their own mind.
  - RivieraKid 13y ago
    I clearly stated that it's a hypothesis. The biggest assumption, that immigrants are less risk-averse, sounds very plausible to me.
    - Dewie 13y ago
      > I clearly stated that it's a hypothesis. Yes, after someone explicitly asked you to back up your initial statement. > The biggest assumption, that immigrants are less risk-averse, sounds very plausible to me. And that's my point. All you need to talk about hereditary traits in these contexts is some vague notion of what seems plausible and believable, and not any actual data. And yet, people are probably going to find it more believable because genetics are involved than someone who explicitly bases it on some purely sociological theory, because genes sound more tangible than sociological theory and the statistics based on that. It's not that there is anything wrong with making up theories. But by stating that it has to do with genes - without any initial disclaimer that it is just a theory - makes it sound like it is based on data and not just a theory.

by Athas 13y ago

RivieraKid 13y ago

No, this is just an idea that occured to me a long time ago in school, it may be completely wrong.

Dewie 13y ago
This is the great thing about the pop psychology part of evolutionary psychology. Now everyone can make up any theory that they want relating to genetics, and just support it with their own arguments and/or common sense - no empirical science or investigation needed on their part. And now just say 'genetics' and their argument sounds like it came from some hard-ish science, and was not just conjured up by their own mind.
- RivieraKid 13y ago
  I clearly stated that it's a hypothesis. The biggest assumption, that immigrants are less risk-averse, sounds very plausible to me.
  - Dewie 13y ago
    > I clearly stated that it's a hypothesis. Yes, after someone explicitly asked you to back up your initial statement. > The biggest assumption, that immigrants are less risk-averse, sounds very plausible to me. And that's my point. All you need to talk about hereditary traits in these contexts is some vague notion of what seems plausible and believable, and not any actual data. And yet, people are probably going to find it more believable because genetics are involved than someone who explicitly bases it on some purely sociological theory, because genes sound more tangible than sociological theory and the statistics based on that. It's not that there is anything wrong with making up theories. But by stating that it has to do with genes - without any initial disclaimer that it is just a theory - makes it sound like it is based on data and not just a theory.