from another thread here: 'superior' genetics creates superior opportunity in life?

[SMOGZINN]

Yep, not inferior or superior at all. I just want the "diverse" kind of genes most conductive towards winning Olympic medals/stuffing my face full of food with little to no weight gain/winning world class RTS game competitions/making billions and/or writing my own ticket in life. Let someone else have the diverse set of genes not conductive towards any of these things for the sake of diversity.

Having the sort of metabolism that allows for Olympic athletes is probably not all that adaptive to being a great computer programmer. Their high energy metabolism would not work well with having to sit in a chair and concentrate on a single task for 8 hours.

Steven Hawkins does not have great genes. He will tell you that his condition is the reason he is a great physicist, can't do anything but sit and think.

 

[OinkBoink]

Having the sort of metabolism that allows for Olympic athletes is probably not all that adaptive to being a great computer programmer. Their high energy metabolism would not work well with having to sit in a chair and concentrate on a single task for 8 hours.

Steven Hawkins does not have great genes. He will tell you that his condition is the reason he is a great physicist, can't do anything but sit and think.

Hawking doesn't have great genes when it comes to his physical body. But he most probably does have the kind of genes that give him a powerful intellect.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Hawking doesn't have great genes when it comes to his physical body. But he most probably does have the kind of genes that give him a powerful intellect.

Intellect is at best only partially genetic. Hawking was going to be a bright bulb no matter what, but what made him into a world class intellect is that he had nothing else to do but think, and chose to spend that time mastering mathematics and applying it to hard questions.

If he had the sort of body that can compete in professional athletics he would probably not have become the mental giant he is today.

 

[jaqie]

Intellect is at best only partially genetic. Hawking was going to be a bright bulb no matter what, but what made him into a world class intellect is that he had nothing else to do but think, and chose to spend that time mastering mathematics and applying it to hard questions.

If he had the sort of body that can compete in professional athletics he would probably not have become the mental giant he is today.

This is exactly the sort of thing I was hinting at when creating this thread.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Intellect is at best only partially genetic. Hawking was going to be a bright bulb no matter what, but what made him into a world class intellect is that he had nothing else to do but think, and chose to spend that time mastering mathematics and applying it to hard questions.

If he had the sort of body that can compete in professional athletics he would probably not have become the mental giant he is today.

Absolutely correct.

I'd go even further and argue that genetics only plays a very small part when it comes to intelligence.

The neural pathways in the brain are a result of gene expression and epigenetics is what controls gene expression. It has been shown that you can actually alter brain chemistry and build new neural pathways even when fully grown. It is likely that Hawkings condition is highly responsible for his intellectual prowess.

 

[smackababy]

Um, Hawkins wasn't diagnosed with his condition until he was 21 and in graduate school at Cambridge. He even was on the Oxford rowing team (albeit as a cox). He was considered exceptionally smart quite awhile before he was confined to a wheelchair. It was his focus and drive towards mathematics and physics, as well as his brash nature that led him to question theories of most learned figures in the community.

The idea that he did not possess the intelligence or aptitude for such a career without his condition is unfounded. Sure, he might not have spent as much time studying later in life (because he admittedly did very little at Oxford, and was said to be able to figure out ways to solve problems without being show, just given the knowledge it could be done), but we can't say that is for certain.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Um, Hawkins wasn't diagnosed with his condition until he was 21 and in graduate school at Cambridge. He even was on the Oxford rowing team (albeit as a cox). He was considered exceptionally smart quite awhile before he was confined to a wheelchair. It was his focus and drive towards mathematics and physics, as well as his brash nature that led him to question theories of most learned figures in the community.

The idea that he did not possess the intelligence or aptitude for such a career without his condition is unfounded. Sure, he might not have spent as much time studying later in life (because he admittedly did very little at Oxford, and was said to be able to figure out ways to solve problems without being show, just given the knowledge it could be done), but we can't say that is for certain.

If this is an attempt at a retort to me then you missed your mark entirely.

I did not claim he wasn't intelligent before, i'm claiming that your brains neural physiology isn't really a result of genetics but rather epigenetics (neural pathways are not set at conception) and thus environmental factors play a larger role than genetics.

There is no question whether a condition like Hawkings would lead to such development, it most certainly would.

 

[smackababy]

If this is an attempt at a retort to me then you missed your mark entirely.

I did not claim he wasn't intelligent before, i'm claiming that your brains neural physiology isn't really a result of genetics but rather epigenetics (neural pathways are not set at conception) and thus environmental factors play a larger role than genetics.

There is no question whether a condition like Hawkings would lead to such development, it most certainly would.

I am refuting the claim, made previous to your reply, that Hawkin's incredible intelligence was a product of his environment (being able to just sit and think about physics all day). While that certainly helped him, he was a genius long before his condition set in.

Environmental factors such as Hawkin's condition happened after he was already displaying the traits of his genius. Therefore, it is better to assume environmental factors such as his parents placing quite a high value on education attributing to his intelligence. But even that, he did not have to try hard even in college in such fields as mathematics and feared his superiors viewed him as lazy. He possessed an understand and comprehension of that subject matter to a great degree prior to the environmental factors being claimed to have brought about such traits.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I am refuting the claim, made previous to your reply, that Hawkin's incredible intelligence was a product of his environment (being able to just sit and think about physics all day). While that certainly helped him, he was a genius long before his condition set in.

That his intelligence is a product of his environment (like everyone elses) isn't really up for debate.

Genetics only play a small role when it comes to intelligence while environment (all the way from his grandmother's environment when his mothers egg cells were made during his grandmothers pregnancy).

Environmental factors such as Hawkin's condition happened after he was already displaying the traits of his genius.

I sincerely disagree with this, there are millions of highly intelligent people in the world but VERY few geniouses.

Therefore, it is better to assume environmental factors such as his parents placing quite a high value on education attributing to his intelligence. But even that, he did not have to try hard even in college in such fields as mathematics and feared his superiors viewed him as lazy. He possessed an understand and comprehension of that subject matter to a great degree prior to the environmental factors being claimed to have brought about such traits.

First of all, all environmental factors would have effects all throughout his life, this does not change that from a man among many he has developed an ability to think beyond the scope of what Edison would call possible.

It seems that you are doing your best to try to argue with me when in fact we agree that he was a highly intelligent man among MANY just like him even before his condition debilitated him.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think it's important to distinguish between opportunity and outcome.

One can have great natural talents and squander them, or have few and make more of them than anyone thought possible. But I think it's irrefutable that having more natural talent means more opportunity to succeed, whatever you want to do.

I find the argument that Hawking wouldn't have become a great mind if he had not been physically disabled wholly uncompelling. There are lots of great minds and most of them are not disabled.

And having options doesn't mean you have to use all of them. I've known brilliant women who could have been models if they wanted to, but chose a different path (as just one of countless examples.) I knew a guy in college who was a scratch golfer but really wanted to be an engineer. Etc.

 

[Sheep221]

To me superior person is someone who:

Does not buy every crap on dept.
Has positive approach towards life.
Is acting polite and professionally.
Has real goals in careers and life.
Had real view on own self and on how things work and how they can be done.
Is able to face problems and don't escape them.
Spends considerable amount of time self-improving(thinking about what next needs to be done, learning, studying, exercising or doing meaningful hobbies).
Is respective to others.
Is acting responsibly towards own self and towards other people and things.
Is kind and helpful.
Is motivated towards doing things in general.
Has healthy confidence.
Knows how to work with money.
Has common sense and general outlook.

Definitely has something to do with genetics, but the rest is attitude.
Doesn't matter if this person is driver, seller, flight attendant, or CPU designer if they have values mentioned above, they are superior to me and I admire those.
Being firefighter, rescuer, police officer(if not corrupt) and paramedic are also professions that I admire, because they are hard to do and are hazardous.
To me is not superior someone who is top-end sales manager, mathematical genius or soccer player if this person is rude, overconfident and unhelpful.
Answer to the main question: yes genetics and how you are wired is partially responsible for some life opportunities, but only partially, luck and a lot of effort is needed.

 

[PowerEngineer]

First you need to define "superior genetics".

I contend that there is no such thing.

I suggest that the "superior" genes are the ones that get passed along more often while "inferior" genes are the ones that seldom get passed along.

It seems to me that we can at least discuss superiority/inferiority on this basis without worrying about our self-hate. 🙁

I imagine that what's superior and inferior have changed over time. Certainly there's less of a bias now against many physical problems thanks to today's modern medicine, and intelligence benefits us more now than ever before. I'd also think that there is (and has been for thousands of years) a bias for traits that help us function in society, so I'm not seeing societal influences as being completely separate from genetic influences.

 

[werepossum]

To me superior person is someone who:

Does not buy every crap on dept.
Has positive approach towards life.
Is acting polite and professionally.
Has real goals in careers and life.
Had real view on own self and on how things work and how they can be done.
Is able to face problems and don't escape them.
Spends considerable amount of time self-improving(thinking about what next needs to be done, learning, studying, exercising or doing meaningful hobbies).
Is respective to others.
Is acting responsibly towards own self and towards other people and things.
Is kind and helpful.
Is motivated towards doing things in general.
Has healthy confidence.
Knows how to work with money.
Has common sense and general outlook.

Definitely has something to do with genetics, but the rest is attitude.
Doesn't matter if this person is driver, seller, flight attendant, or CPU designer if they have values mentioned above, they are superior to me and I admire those.
Being firefighter, rescuer, police officer(if not corrupt) and paramedic are also professions that I admire, because they are hard to do and are hazardous.
To me is not superior someone who is top-end sales manager, mathematical genius or soccer player if this person is rude, overconfident and unhelpful.
Answer to the main question: yes genetics and how you are wired is partially responsible for some life opportunities, but only partially, luck and a lot of effort is needed.

Those are certainly admirable traits, but I think they are culture and choice rather than genetics, and sometimes they can actively work against success (depending on how success is defined, of course.) Most people would not behave as did George Soros, practically destroying a nation's economy for his own personal gain, or the Bush & Kennedy families, attempting to align America with Nazi Germany for their own business interests, yet these undeniably create opportunity. Other people such as Steve Jobs or Thomas Edison were undeniable bastards morally, yet they not only created great opportunity for themselves they even personally caused society's advancement.

I suggest that the "superior" genes are the ones that get passed along more often while "inferior" genes are the ones that seldom get passed along.

It seems to me that we can at least discuss superiority/inferiority on this basis without worrying about our self-hate. 🙁

I imagine that what's superior and inferior have changed over time. Certainly there's less of a bias now against many physical problems thanks to today's modern medicine, and intelligence benefits us more now than ever before. I'd also think that there is (and has been for thousands of years) a bias for traits that help us function in society, so I'm not seeing societal influences as being completely separate from genetic influences.

From a human standpoint, is that really true? Women on welfare as a career tend to have more children than women who are cutting edge scientists or professional athletes. We have broken the link between superior genes being passed down in preference to inferior genes, although there is certainly an argument to be made that genes which support charity (even institutionalized into a way of life for able-bodied people) are morally superior genes.

Seems to me that this is one of the eternal struggles of an intelligent, civilized species. On the one hand we have the genetic imperative to make our species as fit for survival as possible. On the other hand we have the moral imperative to not let fellow humans suffer or die needlessly. Hopefully in the long run these two imperatives meet and blend into one, but they certainly do not align in the short run.

 

[OinkBoink]

Seems to me that this is one of the eternal struggles of an intelligent, civilized species. On the one hand we have the genetic imperative to make our species as fit for survival as possible. On the other hand we have the moral imperative to not let fellow humans suffer or die needlessly. Hopefully in the long run these two imperatives meet and blend into one, but they certainly do not align in the short run.

Yup.

 

[zinfamous]

To me superior person is someone who:

Does not buy every crap on dept.
Has positive approach towards life.
Is acting polite and professionally.
Has real goals in careers and life.
Had real view on own self and on how things work and how they can be done.
Is able to face problems and don't escape them.
Spends considerable amount of time self-improving(thinking about what next needs to be done, learning, studying, exercising or doing meaningful hobbies).
Is respective to others.
Is acting responsibly towards own self and towards other people and things.
Is kind and helpful.
Is motivated towards doing things in general.
Has healthy confidence.
Knows how to work with money.
Has common sense and general outlook.

Definitely has something to do with genetics, but the rest is attitude.
Doesn't matter if this person is driver, seller, flight attendant, or CPU designer if they have values mentioned above, they are superior to me and I admire those.
Being firefighter, rescuer, police officer(if not corrupt) and paramedic are also professions that I admire, because they are hard to do and are hazardous.
To me is not superior someone who is top-end sales manager, mathematical genius or soccer player if this person is rude, overconfident and unhelpful.
Answer to the main question: yes genetics and how you are wired is partially responsible for some life opportunities, but only partially, luck and a lot of effort is needed.

problem is, some of the most brilliant scientists and engineers and minds in the various fields are incorrigible, misanthropic, and irascible cunts--so they never play well with others and are often too focused on the problems that plague them to worry about things like debt, the simple means of taking care of themselves, etc...

it's a shame, though--some of these people solving rather grand problems that clearly make a difference in the world end up being rather horrible individuals in the end. 🙂

 

[PowerEngineer]

From a human standpoint, is that really true? Women on welfare as a career tend to have more children than women who are cutting edge scientists or professional athletes. We have broken the link between superior genes being passed down in preference to inferior genes, although there is certainly an argument to be made that genes which support charity (even institutionalized into a way of life for able-bodied people) are morally superior genes.

My point is that if the measure of success for a gene is propagation, then the degree of successful propagation should be what we use to distinguish "superior" genes from "inferior" genes. Our own ideas of what traits we wish to be superior (i.e. high intelligence, atheletic prowess) and inferior (i.e. stupidity, callousness, criminal behavior) may be just plain wrong. 🙁

 

[werepossum]

My point is that if the measure of success for a gene is propagation, then the degree of successful propagation should be what we use to distinguish "superior" genes from "inferior" genes. Our own ideas of what traits we wish to be superior (i.e. high intelligence, atheletic prowess) and inferior (i.e. stupidity, callousness, criminal behavior) may be just plain wrong. 🙁

If one assumes the position of Eskimospy and Woolfe in the natural rights thread, then you are correct. Success in gene propagation would be the only remaining measure of superiority.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I suggest that the "superior" genes are the ones that get passed along more often while "inferior" genes are the ones that seldom get passed along.

It seems to me that we can at least discuss superiority/inferiority on this basis without worrying about our self-hate. 🙁

I imagine that what's superior and inferior have changed over time. Certainly there's less of a bias now against many physical problems thanks to today's modern medicine, and intelligence benefits us more now than ever before. I'd also think that there is (and has been for thousands of years) a bias for traits that help us function in society, so I'm not seeing societal influences as being completely separate from genetic influences.

In the natural sense this is absolutely correct.

Medical and physical problems are rarely associated with genetics, it's rather a product of environment (if you eat more calories than you expend you WILL gain weight regardless of who you are or what your genetics are like).

I absolutely disagree that intelligence is a genetical trait so i don't consider intelligent people to have superior genes.

Epigenetics controls absolutely every single expression from your genes and it's constantly modified by the environment. Epigenetics is responsible for a decrease in intelligence among people who were malnourished as children and it's also responsible for the exact same DNA to make toenails where toenails should be and ears where ears should be. The brain adapts via epigenetics whenever you are trying to learn something that is completely new to you, new neuron pathways are created.

 

[OinkBoink]

In the natural sense this is absolutely correct.

Medical and physical problems are rarely associated with genetics, it's rather a product of environment (if you eat more calories than you expend you WILL gain weight regardless of who you are or what your genetics are like).

I absolutely disagree that intelligence is a genetical trait so i don't consider intelligent people to have superior genes.

Epigenetics controls absolutely every single expression from your genes and it's constantly modified by the environment. Epigenetics is responsible for a decrease in intelligence among people who were malnourished as children and it's also responsible for the exact same DNA to make toenails where toenails should be and ears where ears should be. The brain adapts via epigenetics whenever you are trying to learn something that is completely new to you, new neuron pathways are created.

For the purpose of discussion, let's assume two children who are genetically different are reared in the absolute same environment (or as similar as they can be). Let's assume they're given the same resources, the same amount of time to prepare etc.

Let's say we're testing for mathematical ability. So both these people will have the same level of mathematical aptitude and score similarly on tests?

Why does Richard Dawkins say that we can produce people who are likely to be good as mathematicians, scientists etc. through inbreeding between mathematicians, scientists etc.?

I'll be the first person to admit that I'm hardly an expert on this subject. So bear with my noob questions. I just know that (most (?)) traits are affected by both genes and the environment. Though the interaction between both is a matter of complex study from what I hear.

 

[OinkBoink]

Also, when it comes to eating and calories, we see that some people are pretty skinny and some people are fat. Perhaps their innate constitution controls how much they eat and exercise. So if two people eat the same amount of food and exercise the same amount, they will gain the same weight?

I know about BMR etc. through this thread. The thread also answers my query. Just wonder what you have to say.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2294527&highlight=

 

[amyklai]

Absolutely correct.

I'd go even further and argue that genetics only plays a very small part when it comes to intelligence.

The neural pathways in the brain are a result of gene expression and epigenetics is what controls gene expression. It has been shown that you can actually alter brain chemistry and build new neural pathways even when fully grown. It is likely that Hawkings condition is highly responsible for his intellectual prowess.

I strongly doubt the "small part".

It's probably similar to physical abilities: practicing certain things will make you better, and a trained person with "average genetics" will often do better than an untrained person with "better genetics".

Just look at chess, for example. A well trained chess player of average intellect will absolutely be able to beat somebody who is smarter but has just started playing.

But IMO there's absolutely no way that you can turn just anybody into a Garri Kasparov-like chess word champion, just by practicing enough.

There are lots and lots of chess players out there who would love to get to that level, and there are quite a few who put the work in - but there are not many who have the right kind of "hardware".

 

[werepossum]

I strongly doubt the "small part".

It's probably similar to physical abilities: practicing certain things will make you better, and a trained person with "average genetics" will often do better than an untrained person with "better genetics".

Just look at chess, for example. A well trained chess player of average intellect will absolutely be able to beat somebody who is smarter but has just started playing.

But IMO there's absolutely no way that you can turn just anybody into a Garri Kasparov-like chess word champion, just by practicing enough.

There are lots and lots of chess players out there who would love to get to that level, and there are quite a few who put the work in - but there are not many who have the right kind of "hardware".

That sums it up nicely. However, the OP's original question was if 'superior' genetics create superior opportunity in life. I think most people would agree that they do. I also think that most people would agree that being born rich will open up far more opportunities, albeit perhaps not some of the very highest ones. And that's not a bad thing; one of the reasons people work so hard, whether it's inventing the iPhone or working two menial jobs to struggle into a better school district, is so their children will have those advantages.

 

[amyklai]

And that's not a bad thing; one of the reasons people work so hard, whether it's inventing the iPhone or working two menial jobs to struggle into a better school district, is so their children will have those advantages.

Yeah, but at the same time I think this type of mentality also has serious drawbacks, as it makes people strive for much more than they personally could ever need and fuck other people over in the process. Or use their connections and money to push their children into positions other people would be better suited for etc etc. I'd actually argue that the world would probably be better place without that mechanism.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I strongly doubt the "small part".

It's probably similar to physical abilities: practicing certain things will make you better, and a trained person with "average genetics" will often do better than an untrained person with "better genetics"..

Considering that your neural pathways are NOT genetic constructions but rather results of your environment entirely i'd say that ... ok, it's not in a small part genetic, it's ENTIRELY environmental.

And i do not have to guess, if you do a search for peer reviewed double blind studies you'll find consistently that those provided with good nutrition and an environment where they learn general things (any normal western school) they have a higher IQ.

Physical abilities can also be changed with training, the difference is that while some are born with a subset of fast vs slow twitch fibers when it comes to brain function this isn't the case at ALL, every SINGLE study that has ever been conducted have shown that the brain of two individuals react the same when it comes to learning if they have experienced the same environment.

It's not general happenstance that rich people go to Harvard and Yale and poor people do not, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with genetics, it has to do with environment ONLY.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

That sums it up nicely. However, the OP's original question was if 'superior' genetics create superior opportunity in life. I think most people would agree that they do. I also think that most people would agree that being born rich will open up far more opportunities, albeit perhaps not some of the very highest ones. And that's not a bad thing; one of the reasons people work so hard, whether it's inventing the iPhone or working two menial jobs to struggle into a better school district, is so their children will have those advantages.

NO it doesn't, he's completely wrong.

It might present a good view from the idiots point of view but it's demonstrably false.

You used to be smarter.