these predictions by well-known brain genious scott alexander give an amazing insight into how silicon valley technofascists think the world works. of note: you will be able to scan your baby's genome for "criminality".http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/02/15/five-more-years/ …
-
-
Exact genes not known (except a few important ones like MAOA (see eg http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29760212 … ) but polygenic scoring technique under development and likely to be better in next five years, hence prediction.
-
Is the problem that you don't believe these studies (or the BBC), or is it that you don't think polygenic scoring can improve that fast?
-
It's very unclear what these studies are actually measuring. Framing it as "criminality" or "antisocial behaviour" presumes a lot about the universality of those categories. Also the Frick/Mason study explicitly says that the literature is too small to draw solid conclusions.
-
There might be some category of "aggression", or even something like "psychopathy", that is heritable and that correlates with criminal convictions. Or it could be some totally other thing, I don't know.
-
On reflection - I can't remember the number of times I've looked at a study and thought "well, that seems reasonable" and then looked at another study and thought "ah, the first was obviously ridiculous". There's not a lot of point in me trying to assess these.
-
The whole mode of debate where you dump a study into the conversation and say "answer this, fool!" is kind of a dead end. I have no way of knowing if it's bullshit or not and no way to move the conversation forward without assessing it.
-
Now that I'm thinking about it - the whole genetic-determinism argument has kind of a motte-and-bailey thing going on.
-
When you're pressed you can say you're just arguing that some human qualities are moderately hereditable. Everyone agrees with that. But when you're not under attack you can go back to believing that the lower classes are genetically inferior, or other horrible thing
- 21 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
the EEA's false so the 50% is shared environment (h2 = c2) - the premises underlying genetic interpretations of adoption data (viz. adoptees are reared in uncorrelated environments) are false, so the conclusion (“adoption studies confirm”) is false
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Do people argue that it would be for the best if society doesn't acknowledge that criminality is heritable?
-
Literally all the time. Stereotype threat was invented for this very reason
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.