or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread - Page 38

post #556 of 1314
yes but point is there is a recurring sectarian element there and between protestants and catholics generally there is not, besides isolated case of Northern Ireland. I'm not saying it's the main motive of conflicts in those countries.
post #557 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

No, my argument doesn't boil down to, "Everyone's the same." My position boils down to, "There are obvious and major differences across populations and groups. It's really difficult to pinpoint the precise degree to which these differences are culture vs. genetic. And I'm suspicious of the motivations behind the desire to pin down differences to genetics--or, not even genetics, but casual generalizations under the guise of knowledge about genetics. My suspicions might not be correct every single time, but they're borne out by the history of racism."
STFU

It's not that difficult and it's getting easier every year. They've already isolated a range of behavior genes or gene clusters. And while it's certainly going to end up being a mixture of both (although the hype about epigenetics is proving to be overblown), knowing that you have that gene could lead to positive early interventions.

So at what point can we discuss? Ten years? Fifty years? It's an area where the Left is especially anti-science in. I share your concern about public or private actors misusing that information, and we absolutely shouldn't have an immigration policy based upon anything like that, but let's get the information out there in the first place.
post #558 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post


It's not that difficult and it's getting easier every year. They've already isolated a range of behavior genes or gene clusters. And while it's certainly going to end up being a mixture of both (although the hype about epigenetics is proving to be overblown), knowing that you have that gene could lead to positive early interventions.

So at what point can we discuss? Ten years? Fifty years? It's an area where the Left is especially anti-science in. I share your concern about public or private actors misusing that information, and we absolutely shouldn't have an immigration policy based upon anything like that, but let's get the information out there in the first place.

Two things this makes me wonder: "anti-science." What is the scientific consensus, or where is the research at, that you can delineate between pro and con? Not that it comes up in conversation really (or ever), but I've yet to hear anybody on the left come out and say they don't believe in genetics, adaptation, evolutionary theory, etc. If anything, that seems to be the domain of a religious subset, at least in the US. So I'm curious about references to studies that show concrete links, not correlative inferences (as in, people who are have mental condition XYZ tend to over-express certain genes/clusters/snps as compared to healthy subjects with a p-value <.05, or behavioral phenotypes observed in courtship of fruit flies). What makes you seemingly so passionate about this, in the context of this thread, if your goal isn't immigration or some other policy? Do you foresee its use in legal practice (serious question)?
post #559 of 1314
What is with the idea that you need trace every phenotypic trait back to all its coding base pairs in order to draw correct inferences about heritability? Or the impact of a trait on individual and group outcomes? We've had good answers to these questions long before the first genome was sequenced.

Take a couple of premises in order:

1. Every human trait that can be measured is heritable. The metabolic stuff, extremely so; the behavioral stuff, still more heritable than most people believe. We have very good estimates of the H2 for every trait under the sun thanks to experiments comparing monozygotic and fraternal twins. This 2015 meta study in Nature was incredible: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n7/full/ng.3285.html

2. Certain behavioral traits are robustly predictive of individual life-outcomes. There is a lot of junk in psychology today that doesn't replicate, but psychometrics is not having that problem. The most informative are intelligence, future-time-orientation, and Big 3/5 personality traits. Further, for these most predictive traits, no one has been able to show any impact of shared environment (nurture). It's all genes + stochastic noise.

3. Different population groups of people vary in their distribution of traits. In terms of the average and variance within a population. IQ across races is a fun one to bring up if you feel like being socially radioactive. But as Larry Summers showed when he speculated that men's overrepresentation in since was linked to their larger variance in quantitative intelligence--meaning men would have more area under the curve at +3sigma even if men and women had the same mean IQ-- the innocuous stuff can still get you chased out of town by a pitchfork wielding mob.

None of the above should be controversial to any numerate person who's bothered to do the homework. It can tell you a lot about individual outcomes within a single society, especially a meritocratic one like the USA.

Comparing outcomes of societies to each other gets a lot messier, though. You have so many more variables to control, and path-dependence issues. BUT, how this information should be used, and generally isnt, is to control for population differences when studying social and cultural phenomenon. I've read entire tomes on economic development in Africa and South America that made zero reference to population IQ... that seems like something you'd want to account for.
post #560 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennglock View Post

What is with the idea that you need trace every phenotypic trait back to all its coding base pairs in order to draw correct inferences about heritability?

FLM (sorry to pick on him again) implied that genetic predisposition to crime exists that it is correlated with certain nationalities, as did you (effectively, that it would explain varying crime rates in the USA). So you need a metric for this, and some regression score is not really a metric if you believe there is an underlying mechanism -- it should be identifiable given these overwhelming and robust advances in the field of genetics. If you want to use this, in the context of this thread or another other political one, as a means of intervention or policy development, you should be able to score the individuals in a population.

Here's a scenario, then. If a person comes from a region where a regression algorithm shows "heritable violence" is greater and statistically significant, does the INS turn that person away?
If we can take a saliva swab and determine someone's inclination toward violent behavior (even still a probabilistic score, unless you're a fatalist), should that person be denied a visa application based on that ? What about for purchasing weapons?
Quote:
Take a couple of premises in order:

1. Every human trait that can be measured is heritable. The metabolic stuff, extremely so; the behavioral stuff, still more heritable than most people believe. We have very good estimates of the H2 for every trait under the sun thanks to experiments comparing monozygotic and fraternal twins. This 2015 meta study in Nature was incredible: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n7/full/ng.3285.html
That's an interesting study, not least because of the size. But the conclusion boiled down to: heritability cluster strongly within functional domains, and across all traits the reported heritability is 49%.
“If we pool all data, the balance between nature and nurture is near perfect: across all traits the heritability is 49 percent, and environmental influences account for 51 percent”
-Senior author Danielle Posthuma, Ph.D.

The article tells you nothing about gene function, rather that small contributions from many genes add up to certain patterns we are able to detect and draw generalizations based on correlative inference. I have to read through it more carefully but there also doesn't seem to be much in terms of the validity of assuming equal environment in all these studies going back half a century. Seems like an important factor?
Quote:
2. Certain behavioral traits are robustly predictive of individual life-outcomes. There is a lot of junk in psychology today that doesn't replicate, but psychometrics is not having that problem. The most informative are intelligence, future-time-orientation, and Big 3/5 personality traits. Further, for these most predictive traits, no one has been able to show any impact of shared environment (nurture). It's all genes + stochastic noise.
This seems fine until we go back to the twins study which showed that environment even within twins plays a massive role.
Quote:
3. Different population groups of people vary in their distribution of traits. In terms of the average and variance within a population. IQ across races is a fun one to bring up if you feel like being socially radioactive. But as Larry Summers showed when he speculated that men's overrepresentation in since was linked to their larger variance in quantitative intelligence--meaning men would have more area under the curve at +3sigma even if men and women had the same mean IQ-- the innocuous stuff can still get you chased out of town by a pitchfork wielding mob.

I agree with that, and it's easily proven for physical traits, perhaps even diseases. But then to go from that to the role these variances place in cognition is a massive leap.
Quote:
None of the above should be controversial to any numerate person who's bothered to do the homework.
I'm quite the innumerate fool, though confused.gif
Quote:
It can tell you a lot about individual outcomes within a single society, especially a meritocratic one like the USA.

Comparing outcomes of societies to each other gets a lot messier, though. You have so many more variables to control, and path-dependence issues. BUT, how this information should be used, and generally isnt, is to control for population differences when studying social and cultural phenomenon. I've read entire tomes on economic development in Africa and South America that made zero reference to population IQ... that seems like something you'd want to account for.

Again, this is predicated on the assumption you've made that there is a direct and identifiable relationship between genetic variance and and the variation in cognitive abilities.
Edited by the shah - 7/7/16 at 8:14am
post #561 of 1314
Thread Starter 
If we want an example where the Left is anti-science in this realm it's anything to do with IQ and heritability of it. Just to raise the issue is often to be deemed racist.
post #562 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

Two things this makes me wonder: "anti-science." What is the scientific consensus, or where is the research at, that you can delineate between pro and con? Not that it comes up in conversation really (or ever), but I've yet to hear anybody on the left come out and say they don't believe in genetics, adaptation, evolutionary theory, etc. If anything, that seems to be the domain of a religious subset, at least in the US. So I'm curious about references to studies that show concrete links, not correlative inferences (as in, people who are have mental condition XYZ tend to over-express certain genes/clusters/snps as compared to healthy subjects with a p-value <.05, or behavioral phenotypes observed in courtship of fruit flies). What makes you seemingly so passionate about this, in the context of this thread, if your goal isn't immigration or some other policy? Do you foresee its use in legal practice (serious question)?

I came into the thread where Fuuma was expressing disbelief in a possible genetic link between criminal behavior and ethnic origin. I pointed out how silly it was to believe that humans would be the only animal species that doesn't evolve according to environment. And pointing out how a slightly elevated testosterone level would cause an overall predisposition to crime in American society, where as in others, it might be an advantage. Eric, a liberal, very educated person, jumped in calling me a stupid racist. And you wonder why I think there might be an anti-science bent on the Left?

I will repeat - I think it's unfair to use this information in governmental affairs. Here's a nice pc example for you - what if I could demonstrate that college basketball players of predominately European descent were, if drafted into the NBA, more prone to be hurt, less effective on defense, and less successful overall. I know this sounds utterly ludicrous, but bear with me, please. It's just a crazy hypothetical I thought up.

So, taking that on its face, if you were an NBA general manager, would you prohibit your team from drafting players of European descent? You'd be at a competitive disadvantage, having passed on Dirk Nowitzki, Goran Dragic, and a bunch of other white players that I'm sure are really nice people.

And if you did prohibit your team, where would you stop? Would players like Delonte West or Steph Curry be verboten? What if you found that Lithuanian players performed almost as well as other non-white players? Would you carve out an exception? It would get very, very complicated to enforce and the more effective way would be to just treat people as individuals.

Now, if you were the NBA would you ban white players to improve the quality of the game? No. You'd alienate customers, and exclude some top shelf players from the game. And all the preceding issues from the GM example.

Now substitute private actors for the NBA GM and the government for the league and you've got an analogy to the dangers of using this type of information in policies.
post #563 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

If we want an example where the Left is anti-science in this realm it's anything to do with IQ and heritability of it. Just to raise the issue is often to be deemed racist.

Or GMOs. Or gender differences.
post #564 of 1314
Ok, you guys are just piling on now.

Leftists (collectivists) invoke their faith in "science" for projects like eugenics, population control, and genocide. This explains why they are so defensive and angry when it comes to this subject.
post #565 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post

I came into the thread where Fuuma was expressing disbelief in a possible genetic link between criminal behavior and ethnic origin. I pointed out how silly it was to believe that humans would be the only animal species that doesn't evolve according to environment. And pointing out how a slightly elevated testosterone level would cause an overall predisposition to crime in American society, where as in others, it might be an advantage. Eric, a liberal, very educated person, jumped in calling me a stupid racist. And you wonder why I think there might be an anti-science bent on the Left?

I guess the issue is a difference in terms of what constitutes anti-science. To me, that is rejecting either scientific theory (say,adaption as a mechanism of driving evolution, gravity, irrational numbers) or the scientific method itself (for example, application of dogma in the realm of scientific inquiry -- teaching creationism in a class on biology, killing people for heliocentrism).

Questioning a conjecture is not anti-science. I dont think Fuuma offered a position, and Eric brought up the issue of historical uses of these arguments while also alluding to the extreme over-simplification (essentially, behavior = genetics). The reason I say conjecture is probably for another discussion somewhere else, but 1) there is still no mechanism for explaining this, 2) evolution, especially of more complex organisms, occurs on massive time scales (note I'm not an evolutionary biologist but I don't think this is wrong to state), and 3) adaptation is not solely a function of evolutionary fitness (I realize the cyclicality of this statement since adaptation drives evolution) . Give it a million years then sure, your point is without doubt valid. Until then, there is a tremendous effort needed to really understand to what extent behavioral traits relate back to genetic predispositions versus cultural and socioeconomic adaptations. Inter- and intra-population differences might vary to differing degrees, and do so based on genetic differences, but that is an as of now unsupported claim that cannot be answered by handwaving evolutionary theory. Personally I am interested to know the answers, I just don't think they exist now.
post #566 of 1314
Thread Starter 
It's anti-science to instantly conclude the field of inquiry is only interesting to racists, or that it was used in the past for nefarious reason...so I'm not calling you a racist over this but just know I only know of racists that care about this. Anti-science is the shutting down of the conversation at all costs which these tactics tend to do.
post #567 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post

I pointed out how silly it was to believe that humans would be the only animal species that doesn't evolve according to environment. And pointing out how a slightly elevated testosterone level would cause an overall predisposition to crime in American society, where as in others, it might be an advantage.

it's not a mystery there is difference in testosterone levels in diffrent ehtnicities, but I haven't heard of study that would show direct relationship between high testorone and violence. Maybe there is idk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

2) evolution, especially of more complex organisms, occurs on massive time scales (note I'm not an evolutionary biologist but I don't think this is wrong to state)

it's evolutionary psychology that examines psychological characteristics. This is amazing field to read articules and books in, on stuff like sexual selection and other adaptations we made as species etc, very interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

. Until then, there is a tremendous effort needed to really understand to what extent behavioral traits relate back to genetic predispositions versus cultural and socioeconomic adaptations. Inter- and intra-population differences might vary to differing degrees, and do so based on genetic differences, but that is an as of now unsupported claim that cannot be answered by handwaving evolutionary theory. Personally I am interested to know the answers, I just don't think they exist now.

that's a fair approach
post #568 of 1314
A Muslim ME guy stated the other day on the news, that africans/ME/Muslims are more "violent", due to their culture and they way they are brought up. He was fairly sure getting the parents to understand a more westernized way of raising their children, would solve a lot of issues, in European societies.
post #569 of 1314
French genetic superiority prevailed, fuck you all, 2-0!!! woohoo
post #570 of 1314
Not a lot of French genes in that team.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread