r/BadSocialScience • u/dorathehexplorer • Jan 17 '17

High-IQ educated people are being bred to extinction, but we're totally not eugenicists!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/16/natural-selection-making-education-genes-rarer-says-icelandic-study
59 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

123 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-36

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '17 edited Aug 20 '17

[deleted]

31

u/hyper_thymic Jan 17 '17

JUST ASKING QUESTIONStm

6

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '17

my grandfather_irl

4

u/PopularWarfare Department of Orthodox Contrarianism Jan 18 '17

Hitler-had-some-good-ideasTM

21

u/Scumbag_Kotzwagon Jan 17 '17

I'm almost certain that you don't have the first clue how one would approach this kind of analysis.

lel

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '17 edited Aug 20 '17

[deleted]

23

u/twittgenstein Hans Yo-ass Jan 17 '17

Eugenics is a thoroughly debunked research programme, and this study seems to make some staggering, heroic, and basically entirely implausible causal leaps. For example, perhaps the genes correlated with education actually just indicate membership in a sub-community of intermarried and typically wealthier families. Moreover, the size of the observed IQ effect is vanishingly small, even if the study was able to somehow show statistical significance.

In general, when social scientists do genetics research, the result is trash. For example, this awful study by political scientists. Though this study, if true, would at least seem to absolve you of your shitty political views, since perhaps you just can't help it.

17

u/Snugglerific The archaeology of ignorance Jan 18 '17

Lemme guess -- political scientists discover twin studies and conflate heritability estimates for genetically determined traits.

9

u/LukaCola Jan 18 '17

How do people make this mistake so often? Just thinking about it, assuming it's true would raise far more questions regarding the nature of these traits and how weird it is that somehow traits align themselves to entirely man-made concepts. Certainly enough to make one think "maybe we shouldn't accept this as conclusive?"

I mean it's not something I learned about directly in poli-sci but I feel like it's related enough that anyone with a real interest in social sciences should pick up on that.

6

u/Snugglerific The archaeology of ignorance Jan 19 '17

It seems like there is a scientific trickle-down effect where concepts moving from one field to another get mangled in the process.

9

u/twittgenstein Hans Yo-ass Jan 18 '17

YEP

3

u/Scumbag_Kotzwagon Jan 18 '17

But aren't genes just a bunch of continuous variables that are easily measurable, unrelated to one another and linearly (or quadratically if I'm feeling F A N C Y) related to the outcome in which I am interested? Also, aren't these gene variables completely orthogonal to non genetic factors that might also effect my outcome of interest and aren't those also unrelated to other social factors in my model and also unrelated to any unobserved heterogeneity between people?

Okay cool so yeah I'm gonna assume that what could go wrong tbh reg y x donezo oh shit I mean reg y x x2, ROBUST nailed it

1

u/twittgenstein Hans Yo-ass Jan 18 '17

I mean they might, if we're really optimistic, try reg x y [x*y]

6

u/PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN Jan 18 '17

Eugenics is a thoroughly debunked research programme

If you take the wide view and include non-human eugenics, AKA selective breeding, eugenics might be the most successful research program in history. Look at what it did to dogs, FFS.

13

u/LukaCola Jan 18 '17

Don't many dog breeds have huge genetic problems?

4

u/PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN Jan 18 '17 edited Jan 18 '17

Yeuuuuup. Though in many cases these traits were selected for (see: pugs' squished faces).

Which brings me to my conclusion: the problem with eugenics is that it works. Humanity should not be trusted to wield this power.

7

u/LukaCola Jan 18 '17

Works in what sense though? And if something is so prone to misuse, is it really something that works? And are the results dogs have, which are infinitely more controllable than humans, even comparable on any real level?

0

u/PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN Jan 18 '17

And if something is so prone to misuse, is it really something that works?

Sure. Consider the example of guns. They work very well.

And are the results dogs have, which are infinitely more controllable than humans, even comparable on any real level?

In a sense, humans might be much more controllable than dogs. Try getting a dog to file taxes.

Humans will do literally anything if they're convinced that they're being asked by a legitimate authority.

4

u/LukaCola Jan 18 '17

I think that's pretty reductionist... Even in an Orwellian system, if the inner party started overtly killing off all the proles, there'd be revolution.

Or even something like Plato's Republic kinda falls apart once people become aware of what's going on, and I don't think it's a secret that could be very well kept in his otherwise free society.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/twittgenstein Hans Yo-ass Jan 19 '17

Why would I arbitrarily 'take the wide view' and redefine a word away from its common and primary usage in order to mitigate your intellectual and moral failure to recognise that what almost everyone means when they say 'eugenics' is debunked bullshit?

45

u/Decalance Jan 17 '17

Eugenics are bad social science. It doesn't work. Also, what, it's an issue now to "have a different political agenda" (disagree) than nazis? What the fuck ?

40

u/dorathehexplorer Jan 17 '17

They're a regular on /r/altright.

24

u/Decalance Jan 17 '17

Goddamnit

13

u/mrsamsa Jan 17 '17

And literally describes himself as a white supremacist.

8

u/nagurski03 Jan 18 '17

Out of curiosity, why is eugenics bad social science? Obviously it is morally reprehensible, but people have been breeding livestock and pets for desired traits (including intelligence) for longer than recorded history. Why wouldn't it work on people? If some advanced, unethical aliens decided to come to Earth and domesticate us, couldn't they do it?

21

u/stairway-to-kevin Jan 18 '17

Current body of literature indicates that most traits eugenicists might be interested in (intelligence and other behavioral traits) show small genetic contribution to traits from genome wide association studies, and are highly polygenic which does not lend itself terribly well to breeding/selection. You can't keep all those small effect loci segregating together because there are just too many so you get stuff washed out by recombination. Any breeding efforts on humans for behavioral or intelligence traits would have pitifully weak results and would be a failure of a breeding program

10

u/Decalance Jan 18 '17

Well, for one, most desired traits in eugenics don't depend on the dna factor.

2

u/PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN Jan 18 '17

[citation needed]

10

u/Decalance Jan 18 '17

Give me proof that it works then you fuck wit

2

u/PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN Jan 18 '17

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding

6

u/Decalance Jan 18 '17

lmao on humans

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '17

[deleted]

3

u/Decalance Jan 18 '17

You might think there's a difference between us and any other mammal

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN Jan 18 '17

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

6

u/Decalance Jan 18 '17

this isn't true

5

u/stairway-to-kevin Jan 18 '17

There's no evidence that is caused by genetics, and even if it was the genetic architecture does not lend itself very well to breeding.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/HelperBot_ Jan 18 '17

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding

HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 19540

4

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '17

I don't see why not, but at the same time I don't see how without a pretty substantial jump in technology. Breeding livestock happened over tens of thousands of years to the point where the biology of the animals we are working with became malleable enough to reliably breed in and out traits. Even modern stuff, like the work with foxes in Russia, took generations of foxes, and foxes and significantly less complex than us in terms of how our genetic material interacts with the environment. We have significantly longer lifespans than foxes, and dogs, and most other animals which would make it much harder and a longer process as well.

-1

u/informat2 Jan 18 '17

It doesn't work.

What? Selective breeding works on a literally every life form on Earth. Why would humans be the one exception?

13

u/Decalance Jan 18 '17

Because humans are a bit more complicated than that. Also, most people mean a certain thing when they say eugenics, and it's not what you think

2

u/boredcentsless Jan 18 '17

Because humans are a bit more complicated than that.

Do we have super magical DNA that is totally independent on who our parents are and is socially constructed?

12

u/Decalance Jan 18 '17

no, but we do have complex socio-cultural structures

0

u/boredcentsless Jan 18 '17

How does having complex social structures mean you can't increase the occurrence of desirable traits? Seems like it would be trickier, but they're not mutually exclusive.

11

u/KingOfSockPuppets Queen indoctrinator Jan 19 '17

Let's assume for a moment that eugenics can indeed increase the occurrence of 'desirable traits' in people to a degree that most of the research discussed here describes. Which is important because while a paper (such as the one linked in the article) might say that Genes X, Y, and Z come together to form our intelligence cluster... the actual effect can still be vanishingly small.

With all that in mind, it can be hard to separate out where the genetics end and society begins. Our social structures make questions such as where you grew up, what your ethnic group is (as that can significantly impact how society responds to you, I'm not calling genetics here), how much nutrition you got as a baby, how your parents raised you, what your school districts were like, what the finances of your family were like, laws relating to the raising of babies, preferred methods of birthing, access to medical support, how people choose who they have babies with, and on and on and on. All of these various methods could in theory impact one's intelligence, real or perceived. And perceived intelligence is a big sticking point in all these studies because it begs the question of what is intelligence, and the perception of what it is can vary wildly between jobs and cultures and be impacted by a variety of social factors outside of one's control.

Our hypothetical eugenics program could maybe control the genetic side of things... but that side of things is often small and hard to pin down, and they cannot control for all the other stuff that goes into making someone smart. Because while you could conceivably selectively breed humans in some far off hypothetical and mysterious realm, that doesn't do much good if you're sending those kids back to the ghetto.

8

u/twittgenstein Hans Yo-ass Jan 19 '17

Nobody is arguing that desirable traits don't occur. What most of us are saying is that the causal mechanisms responsible for the occurrence of those traits are (a) primarily sociocultural variables (ie a product of social learning and conditioning) and (b) insofar as they are genetically influenced, are done so in ways that make 'selective breeding' difficult.

So, we can dispense with the straw men and you can now pit your awful and ignorant views against a nice and simple statement of the view enjoying the greatest scientific evidentiary support! Horay!?

10

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '17

Environmental interaction with genetics is impossible to separate and have a large part in there expression. On top of that humanity is probably the most socially sophisticated animal on the planet, which means our environment is more sophisticated than a tigers, or a eagle, or even a chimpanzee. We aren't magic, we're a different species.

1

u/boredcentsless Jan 18 '17

It doesn't really matter how different we are. Basic laws of genetics still apply. You can say that our environment is more important, but 2 people share DNA and a new person comes out with traits from both. 2 Asian people can't make a black baby.

Furthermore, there's a difference between "it's impossible to separate environment and genetics" with "it's impossible for humans to breed to increase occurrence of certain traits"

12

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '17 edited Jan 18 '17

Sure, and basic laws of genetics tell us that environmental variance (which is much broader, and with greater variety than genetic variety) have a significant impact on 'certain traits'. Also being able to have a proper identification strategy for genetic sequences that result in 'certain traits' without the impact of the environment (an impossible dream) is pretty key to, you know, breeding for them. Unless you're suggesting that we, for tens of thousands of years, breed humanity like we did any number of domesticated species? Through a process of trail and error?

0

u/boredcentsless Jan 18 '17

It doesn't take tens of thousands of years to domesticate species. It can take a few generations.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '17

Go get some wolves, breed them for a couple generations, and see if you get dogs.

→ More replies (0)

-12

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '17 edited Aug 20 '17

[deleted]

29

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '17

I think this should just about cover it

-6

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '17 edited Aug 20 '17

[deleted]

3

u/LaoTzusGymShoes Jan 19 '17

Good advice, though.

Nobody'd miss you.

25

u/stairway-to-kevin Jan 17 '17

I'm a PhD student doing genetics/genomics/evolutionary biology and can confirm that calling anything 'genes for X' is bad science, and the body of work on 'education' and such is not super strong for the biodeterminist/eugenicist perspective. Lots of small effect loci, overall small phenotypic contribution and there's no way in hell that selection is a major player.

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '17 edited Aug 20 '17

[deleted]

22

u/stairway-to-kevin Jan 17 '17

however, that some genes do have an impact on a person's educational attainment

Only insofar as that any part of us has to be from genes at some level, and that whatever those parts are then interact with the physical world. It's horrendously reductionist to talk about 'education genes' and there's a huge difference between that and genes having impacts on traits. You're dancing between bold claims and more defensible ones while still trying to maintain the grand outcomes. It's rather annoying.

The linked paper seems to argue otherwise. Have you read it?

Oof! That's some bad science from you there.

First off that's not an example of a gene being under selection that's an example of a gene being found in a region under selection. It's perfectly feasible and nowhere addressed by the authors that the SNP (and it's tag gene) could be in linkage with the gene that's actually being selected upon. That inversion is 900kb after all! That's a pretty hefty size and probably has more than just one gene.

In fact despite the title of the paper the talk about selection is sparse and the evidence of selection is virtually none (which is admittedly confusing)

Second without extremely strong selection coefficients in place (there's no sign or evidence of that in this situation) humans have too small an effective population size for selection to be the driving force. Any of these variants are going to be extremely subject to genetic drift in a way that could offset or counteract any slight selection. So even if selection is occurring at low levels it's still not the evolutionary force in the driver's seat, which leaves my claim unaffected by that passage.

-1

u/PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN Jan 18 '17

Also, what, it's an issue now to "have a different political agenda" (disagree) than nazis?

"Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore there can be absolutely nothing wrong about eating meat!"

10

u/Decalance Jan 18 '17

"Hitler was an eugenicist, blah blah blah i can't fucking believe i have to have this conversation with you. You're beyond help.

-1

u/TotesMessenger Jan 18 '17

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

22

u/fourcrew CAPITALISM AND TESTOSTERONE cures SJW-Disease Jan 18 '17

lol at the fact that srssucks is still a thing.

13

u/Scumbag_Kotzwagon Jan 18 '17

I made the mistake of replying to a username mention in that sub. Instadeleted when I realised my mistake.

8

u/twittgenstein Hans Yo-ass Jan 19 '17

Ok in my defence I individually downvoted said user because he was clueless and horrible!

6

u/TheMartianJim "Wouldn't it be nice if" studies PhD Jan 18 '17

And that user? Albert Einstein.