3 ms·

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 Arab

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 :)
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  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 why, then, should we invest in pursuing a genetics-based theory, which at this point seems extremely unlikely... You've more or less agreed it's not unlikely, or at least that you don't have any evidence against it (though your prior may declare it unlikely). That's why it's worth investigating. Your literal reading is starting to grate. You previously claimed that a straw man of the form power = alpha x genetics (for a specific value of alpha) must be wrong. You later backed up and admitted power has no cardinal scale. This means that your refutation of the straw man was flawed. I know, science can be less poetic than sociological wankery. Sorry about that, but to predict reality we do need to be literal.
  - pron 11y ago
    > That's why it's worth investigating. I don't think it's not worth investigating, but certainly more resources should be directed towards the more promising theory. Let's just say that what we do know seems to very strongly suggest no more than a small genetic contribution. Physicists, biologists and psychologists can't completely disprove ESP, either, yet what we know now suggests that we shouldn't put too much effort into studying it. Surely you would agree that the dominant effect should be studied and understood before we try to understand secondary contributing factors. Finally, if you don't understand how a piece of software behaves, you're likely to first study it using software tools before reaching out for your oscilloscope. The universal computation of the mind and all that. > You previously claimed that a straw man of the form power = alpha x genetics (for a specific value of alpha) must be wrong. You later backed up and admitted power has no cardinal scale. This means that your refutation of the straw man was flawed. I don't think so. I didn't reject that straw man you're now presenting. I said that if minuscule genetic differences result in huge variance of power, there needs to be some super-linear correlation, or, if that is too cardinal, some amplification mechanism. I then said that whatever that amplification mechanism is, because intra-group genetic variance is much larger, that amplification would create a rather chaotic power structure, which is far from what we see. The power structure does not look at all like an amplification of some random noise. That means that there must be a much stronger organizing principle, and from what we know about the change in frequency of adaptive traits in populations, evolutionary genetics seems like an even less plausible explanation to serve as that organizing mechanism. > Sorry about that, but to predict reality we do need to be literal. Sure, but not when arguing on HN. If I need to qualify every word I write here to convey my meaning even to the most literal-minded HN reader -- and God knows there's no limit to the literality of the geek mind -- I will go crazy. And there's little wankery in sociology or poetry. It's perfectly fine to hack the software. You don't need to drop down to the electron level to study how the computer program behaves; in fact, and doing so won't help you much or at all. The universal computation of the mind (though restricted) makes reduction hard and often misguided, and it can simulate laws that are very far removed from those of the universe where the hardware exists.

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 :)

yummyfajitas 11y ago
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 why, then, should we invest in pursuing a genetics-based theory, which at this point seems extremely unlikely... You've more or less agreed it's not unlikely, or at least that you don't have any evidence against it (though your prior may declare it unlikely). That's why it's worth investigating. Your literal reading is starting to grate. You previously claimed that a straw man of the form power = alpha x genetics (for a specific value of alpha) must be wrong. You later backed up and admitted power has no cardinal scale. This means that your refutation of the straw man was flawed. I know, science can be less poetic than sociological wankery. Sorry about that, but to predict reality we do need to be literal.
- pron 11y ago
  > That's why it's worth investigating. I don't think it's not worth investigating, but certainly more resources should be directed towards the more promising theory. Let's just say that what we do know seems to very strongly suggest no more than a small genetic contribution. Physicists, biologists and psychologists can't completely disprove ESP, either, yet what we know now suggests that we shouldn't put too much effort into studying it. Surely you would agree that the dominant effect should be studied and understood before we try to understand secondary contributing factors. Finally, if you don't understand how a piece of software behaves, you're likely to first study it using software tools before reaching out for your oscilloscope. The universal computation of the mind and all that. > You previously claimed that a straw man of the form power = alpha x genetics (for a specific value of alpha) must be wrong. You later backed up and admitted power has no cardinal scale. This means that your refutation of the straw man was flawed. I don't think so. I didn't reject that straw man you're now presenting. I said that if minuscule genetic differences result in huge variance of power, there needs to be some super-linear correlation, or, if that is too cardinal, some amplification mechanism. I then said that whatever that amplification mechanism is, because intra-group genetic variance is much larger, that amplification would create a rather chaotic power structure, which is far from what we see. The power structure does not look at all like an amplification of some random noise. That means that there must be a much stronger organizing principle, and from what we know about the change in frequency of adaptive traits in populations, evolutionary genetics seems like an even less plausible explanation to serve as that organizing mechanism. > Sorry about that, but to predict reality we do need to be literal. Sure, but not when arguing on HN. If I need to qualify every word I write here to convey my meaning even to the most literal-minded HN reader -- and God knows there's no limit to the literality of the geek mind -- I will go crazy. And there's little wankery in sociology or poetry. It's perfectly fine to hack the software. You don't need to drop down to the electron level to study how the computer program behaves; in fact, and doing so won't help you much or at all. The universal computation of the mind (though restricted) makes reduction hard and often misguided, and it can simulate laws that are very far removed from those of the universe where the hardware exists.