throwawaytkgll

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by throwawaytkgll 7y ago

   We are nowhere near any of the things you mention and a bunch of GWASes aren't going to change this.
2. 2.▲
   by throwawaytkgll 7y ago

   Deriving social policy from popgen results is absolutely insane. Even putting aside the weak correlations, uncertain results and total ignorance of gene/environment interactions (it's not additive, it doesn't make sense to sa
3. 3.▲
   by throwawaytkgll 7y ago

   The problem with "eugenics" isn't that it's morally wrong, it's that it's just wrong. He Jiankui screwed up royally and endangered the life of two girls without even giving them immunity to AIDS. If there was a
4. 4.▲
   by throwawaytkgll 7y ago

   It's one sided because one side is right and the other side is wrong. Studies showing "innate" differences (whatever "innate" means) are dismissed on methodolgy grounds because they do have methodology flaws. The ov
5. 5.▲
   by throwawaytkgll 7y ago

   Wikipedia isn't as authoritative a source as you think it is, especially for subjects like this that are heavily gatekeeped by people with an ax to grin (without necessarily having the actual credentials to back it up) And heritability
6. 6.▲
   by throwawaytkgll 7y ago

   You are erecting a strawman. When scientists express concern towards a misapplication of a result, such as eugenic policies that would derive from the identification of variants associated with whatever trait, they don't just think it