Social policy and genes

[Trausti]

A leopard doesn't change its spots. The fable of the scorpion and the frog (or turtle). Old human morals tales confer an appreciation by people in the past that we are who we are, and we can't really change that. But it seems that, particularly after WWII, the proper way to view humans was as blank slates; any undesirable characteristic (behavioral or cognitive) was blamed on an ism, or other ephemeral societal ill. It was quite verboten to suggest that people might be born that way. Hence, government policy was premised on notion that societal problems could be cured by spending lots of money here or there, and attempting to force, or aggressively suggest, people to act in a certain way. So what is government policy to do if this is all wrong? Obviously, with all these years and trillions spent, the problems of 50-60 years ago should be all gone, right?

It turns out that the fables of the past may have got it right; we are who we are.

But Selzam says it’s important not to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the evidence. “The left-wing view is that everyone’s born the same and you can make everyone achieve the same way. From genetics research, we’ve shown that’s not true,” she says. But understanding this can be hugely beneficial for those who are struggling to achieve but don’t know why.
For example, she says there’s been a strong educational emphasis on grit and perseverance—but genetics research shows that this personality trait only predicts 5% of why individuals differ. So over-emphasizing it will have moderately little effect and, in making children feel they’re not trying hard enough, might well make many miserable.

http://qz.com/740569/one-of-the-fastest-growing-fields-in-science-still-makes-a-lot-of-people-very-uncomfortable/

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0_NsS1Zdlk[/YOUTUBE]

Scientists herald 'tipping point' in ability to predict academic achievement from DNA

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/news/records/2016/July/Scientists-herald-tipping-point-in-ability-to-predict-academic-achievement-from-DNA.aspx

So how might government social policy change to accord with nature? Or will continuing the course, lest we have to face uncomfortable truths, prevail?

 

[untermensche]

Nobody can look at a genome and predict achievement.

Geniuses can be born to people of average "intelligence".

And very stupid people can be born to geniuses.

What twin studies show is that brains constructed under similar "plans" have similar capacities. Not surprising.

They say NOTHING about the inheritability of "intelligence" (the passing of "intelligence" to offspring) or what genes are involved in "intelligence".

 

[zorq]

“The left-wing view is that everyone’s born the same and you can make everyone achieve the same way."

I've never ever met a left-winger who held this view. Why does it feel like, in the US, all the criticisms that the conservatives have about liberals are straw-men?

 

[untermensche]

“The left-wing view is that everyone’s born the same and you can make everyone achieve the same way."

I've never ever met a left-winger who held this view. Why does it feel like, in the US, all the criticisms that the conservatives have about liberals are straw-men?

Nobody thinks everybody is the same.

The real question though is how much do people really differ?

IMO most people lie very close to the mean and there are only a few true outliers.

What makes the difference is experience and "inner" intangibles like "drive" or "motivation" which a person has through no effort of their own, sheer luck and probably related more to experience than genetics.

 

[laughing dog]

“The left-wing view is that everyone’s born the same and you can make everyone achieve the same way."

I've never ever met a left-winger who held this view. Why does it feel like, in the US, all the criticisms that the conservatives have about liberals are straw-men?

Makes one wonder if these straw men criticisms by conservatives are genetically driven.

 

[barbos]

Nobody can look at a genome and predict achievement.

Geniuses can be born to people of average "intelligence".

And very stupid people can be born to geniuses.

What twin studies show is that brains constructed under similar "plans" have similar capacities. Not surprising.

They say NOTHING about the inheritability of "intelligence" (the passing of "intelligence" to offspring) or what genes are involved in "intelligence".

We know intelligence to a large degree inheritable, otherwise evolution would not work. We also know that it's not 100% inheritable because evolution would not work in that case either. I mean, you only get (randomly) half the genes from your parent, chances are, you could get no high intelligence genes at all.
As for geniuses I am of the educated opinion that motivation/drive is more important for that than simple ability to excel in IQ tests and such.

 

[zorq]

Saying that dedication and perseverance can only affect a person's IQ score by 5% seems like it's beside the point. We don't encourage perseverance and education to improve kids' IQs. School isn't about IQs at all. It's about teaching kids how to be successful and productive in the world.

Dedication to education, studying, and productive tasks in general is a life skill and you don't need any specific IQ to benefit from this sort of ethic. It's bizarre to me that this article seems to suggest abandoning education for kids at the bottom of the bell curve.

 

[barbos]

Saying that dedication and perseverance can only affect a person's IQ score by 5% seems like it's beside the point. We don't encourage perseverance and education to improve kids' IQs. School isn't about IQs at all. It's about teaching kids how to be successful and productive in the world.

Dedication to education, studying, and productive tasks in general is a life skill and you don't need any specific IQ to benefit from this sort of ethic. It's bizarre to me that this article seems to suggest abandoning education for kids at the bottom of the bell curve.

Well, there is no reason to believe that nurture has any effect on that either.

 

[zorq]

Saying that dedication and perseverance can only affect a person's IQ score by 5% seems like it's beside the point. We don't encourage perseverance and education to improve kids' IQs. School isn't about IQs at all. It's about teaching kids how to be successful and productive in the world.

Dedication to education, studying, and productive tasks in general is a life skill and you don't need any specific IQ to benefit from this sort of ethic. It's bizarre to me that this article seems to suggest abandoning education for kids at the bottom of the bell curve.

Well, there is no reason to believe that nurture has any effect on that either.

I don't understand.

Are you saying that you can't teach people to be diligent and work harder or are you saying that NOTHING on the environmental factors list including education can help with IQ?

 

[barbos]

Well, there is no reason to believe that nurture has any effect on that either.

I don't understand.

Are you saying that you can't teach people to be diligent and work harder or are you saying that NOTHING on the environmental factors list including education can help with IQ?

Study claims that nurture has no effect on IQ. Well, actually it says IQ of the nurturer has no effect on IQ of the nurtured. No effect at all, none.
So yes they say, IQ can't be taught.

Also they seem to be implying that parenting may have no effect on personalities. So working harder and be diligent may as well be genetic.
So parenting is bullshit

 

[Valjean]

A leopard doesn't change its spots. The fable of the scorpion and the frog (or turtle). Old human morals tales confer an appreciation by people in the past that we are who we are, and we can't really change that. But it seems that, particularly after WWII, the proper way to view humans was as blank slates; any undesirable characteristic (behavioral or cognitive) was blamed on an ism, or other ephemeral societal ill. It was quite verboten to suggest that people might be born that way. Hence, government policy was premised on notion that societal problems could be cured by spending lots of money here or there, and attempting to force, or aggressively suggest, people to act in a certain way. So what is government policy to do if this is all wrong? Obviously, with all these years and trillions spent, the problems of 50-60 years ago should be all gone, right?

Just as in medicine or avionics, we're getting better over time, but we might never achieve perfection.

In the '50s it's true they tended to look at anti-social behavior as a nurtured "social disease." Today we have better studies; better methodologies and technology. We can see inborn neurological differences on CAT scans and fMRIs.

I believe behavioral variety was selectd for during our long development as tribal hunter-gathers. Those with ADHD, for example -- nervous and hypervigilant -- made good hunters, depressives, alone at the camp margins were the first to spot approaching predators. Gay males hung with and guarded the women and children, &c.

These behavioral specialties were useful during the Pleistocene, but some of these inborn traits are dysfunctional in modern, civilized society.

It turns out that the fables of the past may have got it right; we are who we are.
So how might government social policy change to accord with nature? Or will continuing the course, lest we have to face uncomfortable truths, prevail?

Why would you assume neurological traits that prove problematic can't be altered, or safegards put in place to curb their effects?

 

[barbos]

I believe behavioral variety was selectd for during our long development as tribal hunter-gathers. Those with ADHD, for example -- nervous and hypervigilant -- made good hunters, depressives, alone at the camp margins were the first to spot approaching predators. Gay males hung with and guarded the women and children, &c.

That's not how gay men genes were selected by evolution. They were selected because women with these genes have higher fertility.
Gay men themselves are just undesirable side effect.

 

[untermensche]

Nobody can look at a genome and predict achievement.

Geniuses can be born to people of average "intelligence".

And very stupid people can be born to geniuses.

What twin studies show is that brains constructed under similar "plans" have similar capacities. Not surprising.

They say NOTHING about the inheritability of "intelligence" (the passing of "intelligence" to offspring) or what genes are involved in "intelligence".

We know intelligence to a large degree inheritable, otherwise evolution would not work. We also know that it's not 100% inheritable because evolution would not work in that case either. I mean, you only get (randomly) half the genes from your parent, chances are, you could get no high intelligence genes at all.
As for geniuses I am of the educated opinion that motivation/drive is more important for that than simple ability to excel in IQ tests and such.

A human offspring will have a human "intelligence".

It will be able to learn any language or even a couple of languages.

But inheritable means the offspring will have the same "intelligence" as the parent.

Which is not the case.

 

[barbos]

We know intelligence to a large degree inheritable, otherwise evolution would not work. We also know that it's not 100% inheritable because evolution would not work in that case either. I mean, you only get (randomly) half the genes from your parent, chances are, you could get no high intelligence genes at all.
As for geniuses I am of the educated opinion that motivation/drive is more important for that than simple ability to excel in IQ tests and such.

A human offspring will have a human "intelligence".

It will be able to learn any language or even a couple of languages.

But inheritable means the offspring will have the same "intelligence" as the parent.

Which is not the case.

There is no "same" in Evolution.

 

[Canard DuJour]

“The left-wing view is that everyone’s born the same and you can make everyone achieve the same way."

I really shoulda stopped reading there, but..

..watch the video from ~3 mins. Plomin specifies that the adoptive parents were selected by ability to nurture, then says their IQs were unrelated to their adopted childrens' IQs - allegedly "the real killer fact" supporting the idea that nurture makes little to no difference. The interviewer goes on "so it doesn't matter whether they read to them, tried to stimulate them intellectually (etc)," to which Plomin (non)responds "Well, the brighter adoptive parents didn't have brighter adopted children"

IOW, if you eliminate the conditions in which nurture is likely to make a difference, you're left with innate differences. This isn't telling anyone, left or right, anything that wasn't screaming obvious.

 

[untermensche]

A human offspring will have a human "intelligence".

It will be able to learn any language or even a couple of languages.

But inheritable means the offspring will have the same "intelligence" as the parent.

Which is not the case.

There is no "same" in Evolution.

You're right.

Inheritable means the offspring will have similar "intelligence" to the parent.

Which is not the case.

A genius will not produce geniuses, although the children of geniuses will have a unique upbringing that may heighten their natural abilities more than somebody not living with a genius.

 

[barbos]

There is no "same" in Evolution.

You're right.

Inheritable means the offspring will have similar "intelligence" to the parent.

Which is not the case.

How is that not the case? The whole study says it is. there is a correlation between IQ of parents and children.

A genius will not produce geniuses, although the children of geniuses will have a unique upbringing that may heighten their natural abilities more than somebody not living with a genius.

Geniuses are rare freaks of nature and circumstances.

 

[barbos]

“The left-wing view is that everyone’s born the same and you can make everyone achieve the same way."

I really shoulda stopped reading there, but..

..watch the video from ~3 mins. Plomin specifies that the adoptive parents were selected by ability to nurture, then says their IQs were unrelated to their adopted childrens' IQs - allegedly "the real killer fact" supporting the idea that nurture makes little to no difference. The interviewer goes on "so it doesn't matter whether they read to them, tried to stimulate them intellectually (etc)," to which Plomin (non)responds "Well, the brighter adoptive parents didn't have brighter adopted children"

IOW, if you eliminate the conditions in which nurture is likely to make a difference, you're left with innate differences. This isn't telling anyone, left or right, anything that wasn't screaming obvious.

I am sorry but you are not making any sense.
They found that IQ of adopted children correlates with IQ of their biological parents and does not correlate at all with IQ of adopted parents.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, so yet another conservative OP about some topic that they completely screwed the pouch with.

Secondly, even if the results indicated as such, one study does not mean settled science.

 

[untermensche]

You're right.

Inheritable means the offspring will have similar "intelligence" to the parent.

Which is not the case.

How is that not the case? The whole study says it is. there is a correlation between IQ of parents and children.

Studies don't say anything.

Humans make conclusions from data.

What was the data and what were the conclusions?

Geniuses are rare freaks of nature and circumstances.

If "intelligence" is inheritable geniuses should be able to pass on their "genius" to their offspring.