Utopia Talk - Politics - Genes responsible for about 2 3rd

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sat Apr 20 06:58:34 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Genes responsible for about 2 3rd

Sam Adams
Member Wed Sep 05 18:05:13
Of academ8c success.

Rip seb nekran and wtb.

http://m.p...enes-key-academic-success.html

Rugian
Member Wed Sep 05 18:06:10
Which third is the one responsible for spelling correctly?

Hot Rod
Revved Up Wed Sep 05 18:57:09

It is your pencils fault and stay away from spoons, they will make you fat.

obaminated
Member Wed Sep 05 22:11:04
HAHAHA, Rugian with the quick jab on SA, what is the world coming to!?!

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Thu Sep 06 00:25:20
And published in nature. Oooh aaahhh. But seriously this is the first time I read that the shared environment matters for cognitive and scholastic achievements. That is a good thing, means parenting matters.

jergul
large member Thu Sep 06 01:12:54
They actually measured academic stability and noted that even a 5% variation in non-shared environments (different friends and teachers) "However, at times grades did change, such as a drop in grades between primary and secondary school. Those changes, researchers said, can be explained largely by nonshared environmental factors"

Stands to reason. Even small variations in environmental conditions can impact on academic achievement.

So parenting and other environmental things matter a lot.

Seb
Member Thu Sep 06 02:17:47
This is contrary to you argument Sam. It says 60% after intelligence for a start, and even then they appear to be looking at stable grades (i.e. as a means for excluding environmental factors that would prevent a child reaching their potential, which is a neat protocol). So it doesn't follow that, e.g., an individual childs academic performance is 60% likely predictable without taking into account environmental factors.

Seb
Member Thu Sep 06 02:19:57
Jergul:

My reading (caveat not got the paper up) is as above - they focused on a data set where grades were relatively steady.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Thu Sep 06 02:50:07
Jergul.
Yes and further, the fact that something is 60% heritable, says nothing about what contributes to individual differences or even differences between two groups. Taken to the extreme the difference could all be explained by 1 of the 3 factors. Random events beyond our control as Pinker said likely makes up more of us than we imagine or care to believe. From the systems POV, you can ruin most people with a shitty system.

Data like this (as it matures) should inform future systems of education. Think of like this, if you map a cancers DNA you can tailor the medicine for that cancer. In a not so distant future, provided such findings, you could assess how to best provide help for those that need it.

jergul
large member Thu Sep 06 03:27:01
Seb
Yepp and they are explaining variance with the 5% not shared environment.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Thu Sep 06 04:24:23
That is a very specific instance and explanation. At times drops can be explained largely by one factor.

"However, at times grades did change, such as a drop in grades between primary and secondary school. Those changes, researchers said, can be explained largely by nonshared environmental factors."

In this instance the change from primary education to secondary, change in environment may by accompanied by a learning curve and acclimatization.

It says nothing about the magnitude of drop or recovery if there is one. The study claims that stability over time is largely explained by genetics.

These things are probabilistic. For instance If you have inherited mommy and daddies traits for scholastic achievement, you can still have a shitty year. A great teacher can do miracles, you end up with a teacher who is a certified retard. Or in a different school or mode of teaching. But you will probably do well when all is said and done.

But this is all still compulsory education, you can't say much about how kids turn out, until after puberty.

Seb
Member Thu Sep 06 06:21:42
UK has a great data set for this.

We've linked tax and benefit data to state education records in England to produce "Longterm educational outcomes" data set.

It'll be released via ONS secure data facilities later this month.

There should be really good research coming out of it.

Nim:
I think that (genetic asessment of learning) would be unnecessary.

I suspect most of the heritability associates to a broad range of traits that improve education (e.g. diligence, attention).

Firstly, the 60% figure doesn't then look surprising as it's a many to many relationship: a broad bucket of genes, a broad bucket of traits that correlate with good grades.

To unlock those to identify specific genetic profiles with specific traits is a very different proposition.

But more importantly, I suspect it's far easier for a teacher to spot the actual behaviours and characteristic of a pupil and alter their approach - they don't need a genetic test that says "This kid is 60% more likely to be inattentive". They will know with 100% certainty whether they are or not within a week.

The reason more tailored education isn't offered is due to limitation in resources to offer it.

Hence obsession with class sizes in muchbefucation policy, and what criteria to set or stream on fairly.

Seb
Member Thu Sep 06 06:21:47
Tl;Dr:

Interesting, but not surprising, not hugely useful for education policy, and not relevant to Sam's race theory.

Nekran
Member Thu Sep 06 08:17:33
I love how Sam keeps thinking that not being racist means not believing in genetics.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Thu Sep 06 08:31:59
You have to pardon him, but the reverse is often either insinuated or explictly said, that is genetic research adds fuel to the fire of racist ideologies. Just the other day jergul told me (paraphrasing) we don’t need more evolutionary explanations for our behavior, we have everything we need any more will leas to bad stuff. Those people are as real as sam.

Sam Adams
Member Thu Sep 06 09:58:06
Nekran, why do you and seb and jergul think genes cannot be part of achievement gaps? Please use something more concrete than "waaaaaa racism".

Nekran
Member Thu Sep 06 10:22:40
We have gone over this numerous times and you have ignored it time and again. So here we go again.

First of all, genetic variance within "races" are larger than those in between them.

Second of all, "races" is between quotes, because there's no proper scientific definition of any race and you refuse to ever give one, which makes it hard to be scientific about them.

Third of all, slightly larger or smaller statistical predispositions towards this good or that bad behavior for people with this or that gene, is in my opinion no good reason to discriminate against or act in favour of the people with that gene.

If I thought like you, I would hold you being an asshole against all white people, I guess? Or actually, all americans, since it doesn't have to make any sense, and I would want to exclude myself from the group I wish to discrimnate against.

And mind you, I do believe there is a big chance that there is a genetic factor to your being an asshole. But I still wouldn't discrimnate against people with that same asshole-gene, if somehow I knew they had it, because they still could well be nice people, seeing as how we are not slaves to our genes. Someone having a slightly larger chance of being an asshole is no good reason to treat someone like an asshole before this is confirmed.

So even if your wet dream came true (which is quite unlikely, just fyi) and it turned out some gene that is partly responsible for a darker skin colour actually is also responsible for some tendency towards something negative, I still would not care. I would not treat people with darker skin colours any differently.

Do you understand that?

Sam Adams
Member Thu Sep 06 10:39:47
"First of all, genetic variance within "races" are larger than those in between them."

Ok. Still means genetic differences between groups exist.

By all means, judge people by the best available data. Individual data when dealing with individuals if available, groups when dealing with groups. Im not going to rely on ethnicity when i have a superior dataset, say a resume and math test, available. Nor am i going invest in an african neighborhood. Both fit the facts, though you will not like one.

If strict adherence to the evidence makes me an asshole, then i am a proud asshole.

Sam Adams
Member Thu Sep 06 10:42:26
"some gene that is partly responsible for a darker skin colour actually is also responsible for some tendency towards something negative"

I don't see anyone claiming all that is done by one gene.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Thu Sep 06 11:33:15
”First of all, genetic variance within "races" are larger than those in between them.”

This doesn’t actually mean anything. Any two humans share 99.99% of their genes, most of it trivial things needed to survive on this planet. It would be like saying that all car models share 99% of their design with each other. They all have engines, 4 wheels, transmission box etc. etc. yet they all preform and look very different. A small fraction of our genes make up all the difference. The percentage isn’t important for many reasons, one being that genes do not code for one thing, they code aminoacids that can be used for different things.

Also consider that the same gene may exist in two individuals and be expressed at different levels for genetic and/or non genetic reasons. Genes code a trajectory, one that can be disrupted by environmental factors and in genetics the environment starts in the cell wall. So nutrients, toxins or culture everything that isn’t DNA is the ”environment”.

Sam
Do you accept that the difference in IQ could be mostly environmental? It could also be mostly genetic or any variation between, we don’t know. And further whatever the answer, the aprehension is (and I share it) that the ”facts” be used be people to justify the status quo of social and cognitive stratification.

Nekran
Member Thu Sep 06 13:12:45
"Ok. Still means genetic differences between groups exist."

Most definitely.

"Im not going to rely on ethnicity when i have a superior dataset, say a resume and math test, available. Nor am i going invest in an african neighborhood. Both fit the facts, though you will not like one."

I don't mind either one at all, though I feel like I should note that investing in gentrification has made people a lot of money.

I'm also pretty sure you'd take the white guy with a slightly worse resume/math test over the black guy. Though I hope I'm wrong.

"I don't see anyone claiming all that is done by one gene."

Me neither.

"If strict adherence to the evidence makes me an asshole, then i am a proud asshole."

It's mostly your liking Brady, really. What a douche.

Sam Adams
Member Thu Sep 06 13:14:15
The evidence clearly shows both genes and environment play a roll. The exact percentages are unclear.

Sam Adams
Member Thu Sep 06 13:17:37
"though I feel like I should note that investing in gentrification has made people a lot of money."

True... but mainly through whites and asians moving in!

"I'm also pretty sure you'd take the white guy with a slightly worse resume/math test over the black guy."

Well if its close that would really depend on which one is the pats fan wouldnt it?

Nekran
Member Thu Sep 06 13:19:53
"This doesn’t actually mean anything. Any two humans share 99.99% of their genes, most of it trivial things needed to survive on this planet. It would be like saying that all car models share 99% of their design with each other. They all have engines, 4 wheels, transmission box etc. etc. yet they all preform and look very different. A small fraction of our genes make up all the difference. The percentage isn’t important for many reasons, one being that genes do not code for one thing, they code aminoacids that can be used for different things."

yeah... we're talking abotu the differences in only that tiny fraction of the percentage? I don't see how you got to thinking that I was saying anything about a percentage?

Nekran
Member Thu Sep 06 13:21:55
"Well if its close that would really depend on which one is the pats fan wouldnt it?"

I just realised that it's sort of weird that that bothers me less as a random criterium, no matter how big of a douchebag Brady is.

show deleted posts

Sam Adams Member	Wed Sep 05 18:05:13 Of academ8c success. Rip seb nekran and wtb. http://m.p...enes-key-academic-success.html
Rugian Member	Wed Sep 05 18:06:10 Which third is the one responsible for spelling correctly?
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Sep 05 18:57:09 It is your pencils fault and stay away from spoons, they will make you fat.
obaminated Member	Wed Sep 05 22:11:04 HAHAHA, Rugian with the quick jab on SA, what is the world coming to!?!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Sep 06 00:25:20 And published in nature. Oooh aaahhh. But seriously this is the first time I read that the shared environment matters for cognitive and scholastic achievements. That is a good thing, means parenting matters.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 06 01:12:54 They actually measured academic stability and noted that even a 5% variation in non-shared environments (different friends and teachers) "However, at times grades did change, such as a drop in grades between primary and secondary school. Those changes, researchers said, can be explained largely by nonshared environmental factors" Stands to reason. Even small variations in environmental conditions can impact on academic achievement. So parenting and other environmental things matter a lot.
Seb Member	Thu Sep 06 02:17:47 This is contrary to you argument Sam. It says 60% after intelligence for a start, and even then they appear to be looking at stable grades (i.e. as a means for excluding environmental factors that would prevent a child reaching their potential, which is a neat protocol). So it doesn't follow that, e.g., an individual childs academic performance is 60% likely predictable without taking into account environmental factors.
Seb Member	Thu Sep 06 02:19:57 Jergul: My reading (caveat not got the paper up) is as above - they focused on a data set where grades were relatively steady.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Sep 06 02:50:07 Jergul. Yes and further, the fact that something is 60% heritable, says nothing about what contributes to individual differences or even differences between two groups. Taken to the extreme the difference could all be explained by 1 of the 3 factors. Random events beyond our control as Pinker said likely makes up more of us than we imagine or care to believe. From the systems POV, you can ruin most people with a shitty system. Data like this (as it matures) should inform future systems of education. Think of like this, if you map a cancers DNA you can tailor the medicine for that cancer. In a not so distant future, provided such findings, you could assess how to best provide help for those that need it.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 06 03:27:01 Seb Yepp and they are explaining variance with the 5% not shared environment.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Sep 06 04:24:23 That is a very specific instance and explanation. At times drops can be explained largely by one factor. "However, at times grades did change, such as a drop in grades between primary and secondary school. Those changes, researchers said, can be explained largely by nonshared environmental factors." In this instance the change from primary education to secondary, change in environment may by accompanied by a learning curve and acclimatization. It says nothing about the magnitude of drop or recovery if there is one. The study claims that stability over time is largely explained by genetics. These things are probabilistic. For instance If you have inherited mommy and daddies traits for scholastic achievement, you can still have a shitty year. A great teacher can do miracles, you end up with a teacher who is a certified retard. Or in a different school or mode of teaching. But you will probably do well when all is said and done. But this is all still compulsory education, you can't say much about how kids turn out, until after puberty.
Seb Member	Thu Sep 06 06:21:42 UK has a great data set for this. We've linked tax and benefit data to state education records in England to produce "Longterm educational outcomes" data set. It'll be released via ONS secure data facilities later this month. There should be really good research coming out of it. Nim: I think that (genetic asessment of learning) would be unnecessary. I suspect most of the heritability associates to a broad range of traits that improve education (e.g. diligence, attention). Firstly, the 60% figure doesn't then look surprising as it's a many to many relationship: a broad bucket of genes, a broad bucket of traits that correlate with good grades. To unlock those to identify specific genetic profiles with specific traits is a very different proposition. But more importantly, I suspect it's far easier for a teacher to spot the actual behaviours and characteristic of a pupil and alter their approach - they don't need a genetic test that says "This kid is 60% more likely to be inattentive". They will know with 100% certainty whether they are or not within a week. The reason more tailored education isn't offered is due to limitation in resources to offer it. Hence obsession with class sizes in muchbefucation policy, and what criteria to set or stream on fairly.
Seb Member	Thu Sep 06 06:21:47 Tl;Dr: Interesting, but not surprising, not hugely useful for education policy, and not relevant to Sam's race theory.
Nekran Member	Thu Sep 06 08:17:33 I love how Sam keeps thinking that not being racist means not believing in genetics.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Sep 06 08:31:59 You have to pardon him, but the reverse is often either insinuated or explictly said, that is genetic research adds fuel to the fire of racist ideologies. Just the other day jergul told me (paraphrasing) we don’t need more evolutionary explanations for our behavior, we have everything we need any more will leas to bad stuff. Those people are as real as sam.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Sep 06 09:58:06 Nekran, why do you and seb and jergul think genes cannot be part of achievement gaps? Please use something more concrete than "waaaaaa racism".
Nekran Member	Thu Sep 06 10:22:40 We have gone over this numerous times and you have ignored it time and again. So here we go again. First of all, genetic variance within "races" are larger than those in between them. Second of all, "races" is between quotes, because there's no proper scientific definition of any race and you refuse to ever give one, which makes it hard to be scientific about them. Third of all, slightly larger or smaller statistical predispositions towards this good or that bad behavior for people with this or that gene, is in my opinion no good reason to discriminate against or act in favour of the people with that gene. If I thought like you, I would hold you being an asshole against all white people, I guess? Or actually, all americans, since it doesn't have to make any sense, and I would want to exclude myself from the group I wish to discrimnate against. And mind you, I do believe there is a big chance that there is a genetic factor to your being an asshole. But I still wouldn't discrimnate against people with that same asshole-gene, if somehow I knew they had it, because they still could well be nice people, seeing as how we are not slaves to our genes. Someone having a slightly larger chance of being an asshole is no good reason to treat someone like an asshole before this is confirmed. So even if your wet dream came true (which is quite unlikely, just fyi) and it turned out some gene that is partly responsible for a darker skin colour actually is also responsible for some tendency towards something negative, I still would not care. I would not treat people with darker skin colours any differently. Do you understand that?
Sam Adams Member	Thu Sep 06 10:39:47 "First of all, genetic variance within "races" are larger than those in between them." Ok. Still means genetic differences between groups exist. By all means, judge people by the best available data. Individual data when dealing with individuals if available, groups when dealing with groups. Im not going to rely on ethnicity when i have a superior dataset, say a resume and math test, available. Nor am i going invest in an african neighborhood. Both fit the facts, though you will not like one. If strict adherence to the evidence makes me an asshole, then i am a proud asshole.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Sep 06 10:42:26 "some gene that is partly responsible for a darker skin colour actually is also responsible for some tendency towards something negative" I don't see anyone claiming all that is done by one gene.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Sep 06 11:33:15 ”First of all, genetic variance within "races" are larger than those in between them.” This doesn’t actually mean anything. Any two humans share 99.99% of their genes, most of it trivial things needed to survive on this planet. It would be like saying that all car models share 99% of their design with each other. They all have engines, 4 wheels, transmission box etc. etc. yet they all preform and look very different. A small fraction of our genes make up all the difference. The percentage isn’t important for many reasons, one being that genes do not code for one thing, they code aminoacids that can be used for different things. Also consider that the same gene may exist in two individuals and be expressed at different levels for genetic and/or non genetic reasons. Genes code a trajectory, one that can be disrupted by environmental factors and in genetics the environment starts in the cell wall. So nutrients, toxins or culture everything that isn’t DNA is the ”environment”. Sam Do you accept that the difference in IQ could be mostly environmental? It could also be mostly genetic or any variation between, we don’t know. And further whatever the answer, the aprehension is (and I share it) that the ”facts” be used be people to justify the status quo of social and cognitive stratification.
Nekran Member	Thu Sep 06 13:12:45 "Ok. Still means genetic differences between groups exist." Most definitely. "Im not going to rely on ethnicity when i have a superior dataset, say a resume and math test, available. Nor am i going invest in an african neighborhood. Both fit the facts, though you will not like one." I don't mind either one at all, though I feel like I should note that investing in gentrification has made people a lot of money. I'm also pretty sure you'd take the white guy with a slightly worse resume/math test over the black guy. Though I hope I'm wrong. "I don't see anyone claiming all that is done by one gene." Me neither. "If strict adherence to the evidence makes me an asshole, then i am a proud asshole." It's mostly your liking Brady, really. What a douche.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Sep 06 13:14:15 The evidence clearly shows both genes and environment play a roll. The exact percentages are unclear.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Sep 06 13:17:37 "though I feel like I should note that investing in gentrification has made people a lot of money." True... but mainly through whites and asians moving in! "I'm also pretty sure you'd take the white guy with a slightly worse resume/math test over the black guy." Well if its close that would really depend on which one is the pats fan wouldnt it?
Nekran Member	Thu Sep 06 13:19:53 "This doesn’t actually mean anything. Any two humans share 99.99% of their genes, most of it trivial things needed to survive on this planet. It would be like saying that all car models share 99% of their design with each other. They all have engines, 4 wheels, transmission box etc. etc. yet they all preform and look very different. A small fraction of our genes make up all the difference. The percentage isn’t important for many reasons, one being that genes do not code for one thing, they code aminoacids that can be used for different things." yeah... we're talking abotu the differences in only that tiny fraction of the percentage? I don't see how you got to thinking that I was saying anything about a percentage?
Nekran Member	Thu Sep 06 13:21:55 "Well if its close that would really depend on which one is the pats fan wouldnt it?" I just realised that it's sort of weird that that bothers me less as a random criterium, no matter how big of a douchebag Brady is.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: