4 ms·

You postulated that if there were a hidden genetic factor in power acquisition, some genetically determined subgroups would have more power than others. This is

You postulated that if there were a hidden genetic factor in power acquisition, some genetically determined subgroups would have more power than others. This is exactly what is observed. In this post you seem to also be assuming that if genetically different subpopulations differed in any way that we presume to matter, we would have strong direct measurements of it. Of course, if modern genetics is not as advanced as you seem to think it is, then that claim would be false - such a genetic trait might exist but we simply haven't figured out which SNPs are relevant to it yet. You also seem to be assuming that it's somehow directly correlated with overall genetic distance, and that it obeys a specific linear relation. You've demonstrated fairly well that if genetics cause power, it doesn't do so in one very specific way. This is not explaining how the world would be different if the general theory of genetics -> power were true, it's merely explaining how the world would be different if one specific straw man were true. This is like saying "particles fall at a non-constant speed, therefore a gravitation theory with a constant rate of motion is false, therefore gravity must not exist". No one is a hundred times smarter or stronger or faster than the average population. Yet you see both individuals and localized groups (at almost any size) that are easily a hundred (or a thousand) times more powerful than other individuals or localized groups. Wow. Last time you tried to define power, the best you could cook up was a graph - A can influence the actions of B, so A has power over B. (I.e. pretty much everyone has power over everyone else.) Now you've somehow cardinally quantified power? What are it's units?

pron 11y ago
> This is exactly what is observed Not on this planet. Power distribution does not behave like anything that could be explained by any reasonable theory of genetic traits, extant or future. It doesn't explain the extremely sudden acquisition of power by Europeans, nor the extremely sudden decline in power of Arabs (or other groups, but I chose Arabs because they had a clear technological and scientific advantage[1]). And I don't know about future theories, but nothing we know so far even hints at large genetic inter-race differences between races. Everything we know suggests pertinent genetic differences among races are minuscule, virtually nil, compared to intra-group variance. The biggest differences are literally superficial. In order to explain power with genetics you 1) have to discard current genetic findings of little relative inter-race variance, 2) explain the revolutionary and sudden acquisitions and losses of power -- at extreme magnitudes -- in history. To me that seems like a lot of theoretical effort with zero evidence to back it (and plenty of evidence to explain its appeal, in spite of demonstrated falsehood[2]). There could theoretically be some as-of-yet-ununderstood genetic contribution, but absolutely nothing we see so far gives us any reason to believe that is so. > ... Now you've somehow cardinally quantified power? What are it's units? I am not saying power is a cardinal quantity, nor have I ever had any difficulty explaining it. What's the difference, though? Do you also put sickness, violence and many other well-defined concepts in quotes when you write? One thing is certain: race is much less well defined (and less quantifiable) than power, yet I don't see you putting that word in quotes. [1]: European teachers even dressed as Muslims to appear smarter and culturally superior. [2]: A good friend of mine is just now doing experiments on ingroup/outgroup allegiance in children. You'll be amazed at the ease (matter of minutes) in which boys (though not girls!) develop allegiance to an imaginary "blue group" or "orange group" and start believing in innate superiority.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  It doesn't explain the extremely sudden acquisition of power by Europeans, nor the extremely sudden decline in power of Arabs (or other groups, but I chose Arabs because they had a clear technological and scientific advantage[1]). You've solidly demonstrated that the world is different than what the straw man theory "100% of power is determined by genetics" predicts. I can now refute the straw man theory that 100% of power is determined by social factors: being in the NBA provides money and power, and being tall (predominantly a genetic trait) drastically improves your ability to get in. Let me more carefully state my question. Suppose there were genetic factors which cause at least 15% of observed variation in power within modern society (or perhaps cause >15% of variation across societies). How would the world be different? Near as I can tell, your only other prediction based on this claim is that "because we've 100% mapped all genetic influences on anything, and because power is so well defined even though I can't figure out if it's cardinal or not, if such a factor existed we'd almost certainly measured it precisely." Note that you've added an additional hypothesis, namely that modern genetics is incredibly advanced. So all you've proven is that one of two hypothesis is false: either genetics don't cause >15% of variation in power or modern genetics hasn't actually understood everything. Based on my admittedly limited knowledge of genetics, I strongly suspect you've simply proven the latter. As far as I know, modern genetics can't predict which individuals will get into the NBA either. Do you therefore believe height is not genetically determined? ...a hundred (or a thousand) times more powerful...I am not saying power is a cardinal quantity... Wow, even your previous straw man is still standing now that you just contradicted your claim that some groups have "a hundred (or a thousand) times more power...".
  - pron 11y ago
    > Suppose there were genetic factors which cause at least 15% of observed variation in power within modern society (or perhaps cause >15% of variation across societies). How would the world be different? Oh, now we're getting somewhere! I don't know that genetics doesn't contribute 15% to accumulation of power. Maybe it does. It certainly can contribute something as your NBA example demonstrates. But we can say with high certainty that the contribution isn't a very dominant one (on average across the population), because power behaves very differently from genetics. You don't find such high disparities in power in other species, and the more social the species, the more unequal the power distribution (roughly, excluding such extreme circumstances as a queen bee, which doesn't really have what can be called power, but is certainly very distinguished :)). The reason is that power-creating genes would be extremely adaptive, but of course, power is almost by definition relative rather than absolute, and genetics simply does not let such deterministic extreme variations in any adaptive trait to persist for so long within a given population. You could perhaps claim that concentrations of power are transient anomalies, the short period when an adaptive mutation is yet to spread. But that doesn't explain the observed long-range stability of power, and sometimes very sudden decline. All of that seems to hint very strongly at a social, rather than genetic model. Even if our understanding of genetics is very limited, the mathematical models we have for evolution don't behave like power does. Maybe the models are wrong. Maybe natural selection is woefully inadequate. On the other hand, power does seem to follow social patterns (e.g. it is socially contagious[1]) -- which are also very far from being perfectly understood. But why, then, should we invest in pursuing a genetics-based theory, which at this point seems extremely unlikely, at the expense of a social theory that seems much more so? > Wow, even your previous straw man is still standing now that you just contradicted your claim that some groups have "a hundred (or a thousand) times more power...". Most people would agree that Louis CK is hundreds of times funnier than me, yet I don't know how to exactly measure (or even quantitatively define) humor. Your literal reading is starting to grate. [1]: This isn't evidence, and not even an interesting anecdote -- no more than a joke, really -- but in the current US election contest, the two leading candidates are both from (newish) political dynasties, and few would dispute that their family relations have a lot to do with their power. Yet one is tied to his family through blood and the other through marriage, yet the effect seems to be the same :)

pron 11y ago

> This is exactly what is observed Not on this planet. Power distribution does not behave like anything that could be explained by any reasonable theory of genetic traits, extant or future. It doesn't explain the extremely sudden acquisition of power by Europeans, nor the extremely sudden decline in power of Arabs (or other groups, but I chose Arabs because they had a clear technological and scientific advantage[1]). And I don't know about future theories, but nothing we know so far even hints at large genetic inter-race differences between races. Everything we know suggests pertinent genetic differences among races are minuscule, virtually nil, compared to intra-group variance. The biggest differences are literally superficial. In order to explain power with genetics you 1) have to discard current genetic findings of little relative inter-race variance, 2) explain the revolutionary and sudden acquisitions and losses of power -- at extreme magnitudes -- in history. To me that seems like a lot of theoretical effort with zero evidence to back it (and plenty of evidence to explain its appeal, in spite of demonstrated falsehood[2]). There could theoretically be some as-of-yet-ununderstood genetic contribution, but absolutely nothing we see so far gives us any reason to believe that is so. > ... Now you've somehow cardinally quantified power? What are it's units? I am not saying power is a cardinal quantity, nor have I ever had any difficulty explaining it. What's the difference, though? Do you also put sickness, violence and many other well-defined concepts in quotes when you write? One thing is certain: race is much less well defined (and less quantifiable) than power, yet I don't see you putting that word in quotes. [1]: European teachers even dressed as Muslims to appear smarter and culturally superior. [2]: A good friend of mine is just now doing experiments on ingroup/outgroup allegiance in children. You'll be amazed at the ease (matter of minutes) in which boys (though not girls!) develop allegiance to an imaginary "blue group" or "orange group" and start believing in innate superiority.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
It doesn't explain the extremely sudden acquisition of power by Europeans, nor the extremely sudden decline in power of Arabs (or other groups, but I chose Arabs because they had a clear technological and scientific advantage[1]). You've solidly demonstrated that the world is different than what the straw man theory "100% of power is determined by genetics" predicts. I can now refute the straw man theory that 100% of power is determined by social factors: being in the NBA provides money and power, and being tall (predominantly a genetic trait) drastically improves your ability to get in. Let me more carefully state my question. Suppose there were genetic factors which cause at least 15% of observed variation in power within modern society (or perhaps cause >15% of variation across societies). How would the world be different? Near as I can tell, your only other prediction based on this claim is that "because we've 100% mapped all genetic influences on anything, and because power is so well defined even though I can't figure out if it's cardinal or not, if such a factor existed we'd almost certainly measured it precisely." Note that you've added an additional hypothesis, namely that modern genetics is incredibly advanced. So all you've proven is that one of two hypothesis is false: either genetics don't cause >15% of variation in power or modern genetics hasn't actually understood everything. Based on my admittedly limited knowledge of genetics, I strongly suspect you've simply proven the latter. As far as I know, modern genetics can't predict which individuals will get into the NBA either. Do you therefore believe height is not genetically determined? ...a hundred (or a thousand) times more powerful...I am not saying power is a cardinal quantity... Wow, even your previous straw man is still standing now that you just contradicted your claim that some groups have "a hundred (or a thousand) times more power...".
- pron 11y ago
  > Suppose there were genetic factors which cause at least 15% of observed variation in power within modern society (or perhaps cause >15% of variation across societies). How would the world be different? Oh, now we're getting somewhere! I don't know that genetics doesn't contribute 15% to accumulation of power. Maybe it does. It certainly can contribute something as your NBA example demonstrates. But we can say with high certainty that the contribution isn't a very dominant one (on average across the population), because power behaves very differently from genetics. You don't find such high disparities in power in other species, and the more social the species, the more unequal the power distribution (roughly, excluding such extreme circumstances as a queen bee, which doesn't really have what can be called power, but is certainly very distinguished :)). The reason is that power-creating genes would be extremely adaptive, but of course, power is almost by definition relative rather than absolute, and genetics simply does not let such deterministic extreme variations in any adaptive trait to persist for so long within a given population. You could perhaps claim that concentrations of power are transient anomalies, the short period when an adaptive mutation is yet to spread. But that doesn't explain the observed long-range stability of power, and sometimes very sudden decline. All of that seems to hint very strongly at a social, rather than genetic model. Even if our understanding of genetics is very limited, the mathematical models we have for evolution don't behave like power does. Maybe the models are wrong. Maybe natural selection is woefully inadequate. On the other hand, power does seem to follow social patterns (e.g. it is socially contagious[1]) -- which are also very far from being perfectly understood. But why, then, should we invest in pursuing a genetics-based theory, which at this point seems extremely unlikely, at the expense of a social theory that seems much more so? > Wow, even your previous straw man is still standing now that you just contradicted your claim that some groups have "a hundred (or a thousand) times more power...". Most people would agree that Louis CK is hundreds of times funnier than me, yet I don't know how to exactly measure (or even quantitatively define) humor. Your literal reading is starting to grate. [1]: This isn't evidence, and not even an interesting anecdote -- no more than a joke, really -- but in the current US election contest, the two leading candidates are both from (newish) political dynasties, and few would dispute that their family relations have a lot to do with their power. Yet one is tied to his family through blood and the other through marriage, yet the effect seems to be the same :)