3 ms·

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 demonstrate

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.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  It's easy to see how the world would be different if ESP worked - Wall St. would be run by psychics, not quants. You've yet to make any such predictions regarding genetic differences, except possibly vague allusions to some slightly different power structure which you can't even explain clearly and which is dependent on some unspecified assumptions about genetics. 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. You are assuming that whatever variation exists in power causing genes has huge in-group variance relative to between-group variance. This might be false. In fact, we know it's false for height, skin pigment, and a variety of other easy to measure traits. Incidentally, in many cases, we also don't know what specific SNPs cause those traits. But I guess it's completely impossible that some harder to measure trait might also exhibit similar variance.
  - pron 11y ago
    > It's easy to see how the world would be different if ESP worked It's also easy to see how the world would be different if genetics played a significant role in the power distribution. I did not make vague allusions nor was the power structure I described slightly different: I described a chaotic, unstable, though rather uniformly distributed power. Just about the complete opposite of the power structure we have on this planet now. True, we do not know how (or whether) the world would be different if genetic contribution were small, but neither do we know that for weak ESP (like in the infamous Derryl Bem experiment, where people could guess with a slightly better than random probability, one of two possibilities -- provided they were related to naked women -- a second or so into the future). Still, we don't put too much effort looking for weak ESP. > In fact, we know it's false for height, skin pigment, and a variety of other easy to measure traits. Oh, we know skin pigment affects power very well. It just does so with the mediating factor of society. > But I guess it's completely impossible that some harder to measure trait might also exhibit similar variance. So far it is you who are making vague allusions to mysterious traits that you are not even able to describe at all, let alone ascribe to genetics in any shape way or form, when a simpler explanation exists which so far explains observations rather well. Is it impossible? Of course not! But what you're doing isn't too different from creationism. We can't disprove that, either. If you have some better notions of what it is you're looking for, why you believe it may be genetic in spite of drastic revolutions in power distribution among the races -- occurring over mere centuries -- then we'll have something to study. You haven't even made a clear hypothesis let alone a falsifiable one. -- And I must say once again -- though of course it isn't enough to dismiss it -- that your case isn't at all helped by the fact that experiments have shown a strong desire in humans to believe in innate differences, even as very young children, who view social differences as hereditary, innate and immutable. It does us a lot of good to believe so: it absolves us of moral considerations, alleviates fear of change, and gives us a strong sense that what is is what should be. In short, it makes it easier for us to cope with the world -- just like religion. Religion (or magical thinking) and racism (or ingroup allegiance) appear at a very early age, and are possibly instinctual. This is one example of a study (there are tons) by my friend's former research group: http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/.premium-1.528187 http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/.premium-1.528187

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.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
It's easy to see how the world would be different if ESP worked - Wall St. would be run by psychics, not quants. You've yet to make any such predictions regarding genetic differences, except possibly vague allusions to some slightly different power structure which you can't even explain clearly and which is dependent on some unspecified assumptions about genetics. 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. You are assuming that whatever variation exists in power causing genes has huge in-group variance relative to between-group variance. This might be false. In fact, we know it's false for height, skin pigment, and a variety of other easy to measure traits. Incidentally, in many cases, we also don't know what specific SNPs cause those traits. But I guess it's completely impossible that some harder to measure trait might also exhibit similar variance.
- pron 11y ago
  > It's easy to see how the world would be different if ESP worked It's also easy to see how the world would be different if genetics played a significant role in the power distribution. I did not make vague allusions nor was the power structure I described slightly different: I described a chaotic, unstable, though rather uniformly distributed power. Just about the complete opposite of the power structure we have on this planet now. True, we do not know how (or whether) the world would be different if genetic contribution were small, but neither do we know that for weak ESP (like in the infamous Derryl Bem experiment, where people could guess with a slightly better than random probability, one of two possibilities -- provided they were related to naked women -- a second or so into the future). Still, we don't put too much effort looking for weak ESP. > In fact, we know it's false for height, skin pigment, and a variety of other easy to measure traits. Oh, we know skin pigment affects power very well. It just does so with the mediating factor of society. > But I guess it's completely impossible that some harder to measure trait might also exhibit similar variance. So far it is you who are making vague allusions to mysterious traits that you are not even able to describe at all, let alone ascribe to genetics in any shape way or form, when a simpler explanation exists which so far explains observations rather well. Is it impossible? Of course not! But what you're doing isn't too different from creationism. We can't disprove that, either. If you have some better notions of what it is you're looking for, why you believe it may be genetic in spite of drastic revolutions in power distribution among the races -- occurring over mere centuries -- then we'll have something to study. You haven't even made a clear hypothesis let alone a falsifiable one. -- And I must say once again -- though of course it isn't enough to dismiss it -- that your case isn't at all helped by the fact that experiments have shown a strong desire in humans to believe in innate differences, even as very young children, who view social differences as hereditary, innate and immutable. It does us a lot of good to believe so: it absolves us of moral considerations, alleviates fear of change, and gives us a strong sense that what is is what should be. In short, it makes it easier for us to cope with the world -- just like religion. Religion (or magical thinking) and racism (or ingroup allegiance) appear at a very early age, and are possibly instinctual. This is one example of a study (there are tons) by my friend's former research group: http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/.premium-1.528187 http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/.premium-1.528187