Comments on: Political Genes

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 07:24:41 +0000

Then what is the MOST reliable way avaliable to gain accurate political beliefs, or at least compensate for genetic biases?

By: Stephen J. Hulbert

Stephen J. Hulbert — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 19:10:02 +0000

Are there any good books about the relationship between genes and politics?

By: Phil Goetz

Phil Goetz — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 23:40:52 +0000

Because the study was a twin study, my comment above is irrelevant.

By: Phil Goetz

Phil Goetz — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 23:24:08 +0000

Please provide a reference. The link you provide merely leads to a nag screen, with no information as to the authors, journal, or year of publication.

By: Phil Goetz

Phil Goetz — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 23:22:00 +0000

Because there are millions of common SNPs, CNVs, and other genetic variants in humans, it is possible to attribute 99% of any attribute to genetic variation, unless you have a sample size in the millions (possibly fewer, possibly much more). So it’s crucial to know how the study controlled for multiple hypothesis testing (meaning, if the first gene variant you try fails to account for the data, you can move on to the second, and the third, and the millionth.)

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:30:26 +0000

It is important to distinguish between “heritable” and “genetic”.

First off, epigenetic factors – these are both environmentally influenced AND heritable, and their influence on cognition is a hot topic right now, particularly the role of DNA methylation.

Also, there is a huge “heritability gap” – even though we know many traits, like propensity for diabetes, are extremely heritable, we have been unable to link these traits to _specific_ genes or features in the genome. This is a big puzzle right now, and it may be that our perspective on what it means for something to be “genetic” is way off base.

Please, please use the term “heritable” when that’s what’s observed, because calling it “genetic” is quite premature.

By: Constant

Constant — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:57:13 +0000

The fools believe they are sages and believe everything sagacious -including your advice – is foolish. They believe that their failure to follow (what they wrongly believe to be) foolish advice is consistent with their sagacity. The fools and the sages have their categories reversed.

If this is insufficient explanation, I will drop it here and possibly take up the matter at a later time with a more acceptable thought experiment.

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:31:07 +0000

Constant, if they fools do not know they are fools, then they can’t tell they are fools from whether or not they are inclined to follow advice, so you can’t assume the fools don’t follow your advice.

By: Constant

Constant — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:14:33 +0000

(Actually I think that you (Robin) must be kidding, but it’s hard to read sly humor in text – hence my straight response.)

By: Constant

Constant — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:02:12 +0000

The simplified model is there to make the point clear. In the real world the fools do not know they are fools, and therefore, to make the model a better microcosm of the real case, we must likewise assume that the fools do not know they are fools.