How much do genetics make a difference?

Yeah, as Farmboy says, wealth offers multiple degrees of stability that poverty doesn't. It also, in the case of athletics, allows for more private training, better schools to attend, etc., etc. Particularly for sports like baseball, which take quite a bit of personal financial commitment from families whose kids play.
 
If you're talking about the top most pinnacle of successes as we define it (ie money) I think it's mostly luck of timing tbh. Sure bill gates, zuckerberg, jobs are all geniuses of varying degree, but how many other geniuses exist that haven't become billionaires? Probably tons. For them they all identified a market need and were in the right place at the right time to provide it. Or you can go another step down, look at steve ballmer, billionaire, owns the la clippers now. He managed to get in on the ground floor at microsoft. What if he had been at abc computer corp instead that went bust? Surely he help contribute to microsoft's success, but it's also some luck that he managed to find microsoft at the time he did. Is he really thousands of times smarter or more capable than any other number of ceos who run smaller companies are are maybe worth a thousandth of what he is?

Success stories are littered with more and more examples. Rovio and angry birds. It's a fun little game, but WTH? There are hundreds more objectively better games. And if you read their story it wasn't even close to their first title, they had released a ton of games before hitting the jackpot with angry birds and I haven't heard of any notable apps they've released since either.

Genetics and upbringing matter a lot when talking about normal what middle class kind of people would call success, stuff like having a well paying job, secure retirement, buying a house and car, kids if you want em. But when talking about ultra success it's all timing and luck plays a bigger role than many people probably want to admit.

Actually now that I think about it, luck is a pretty big part in even middle class normal life too. Example, I bought my first house in 2006 right after graduating college. Every said it was an awesome idea, buy over renting, build equity and all that. Housing market crashed, sold it 9 years later for what I paid but didn't get back out the money I put into remodeling it, not even close. Had I bought in 2009, a measly 3 years later, I would've made out like a bandit. Could've had fully remodeled houses in the same neighborhood for 25% less, probably would've made 10s of thousands of dollars when I sold in profit. Oh and I missed the first time homebuyers credit. $8000 in free money by a measly 14 months. My buddies who had rung up credit card debt and thus couldn't afford the down payment on a house ended up better off than me a couple years later. Cus of dumb luck. They weren't smarter than me, many even made less money, they just had better ie lucky timing.

Of course I've been on the receiving end as well. My $40k college scholarship turned into a full ride scholarship (worth probably 50% more) cus the person they originally offered it to turned it down to go to school somewhere else and I was next in line.
 
More than most people are comfortable with, but blank slate arguments will eventually go away
 
Nature vs nurture can be an awkward split. How about "things we can control to some degree versus those we cannot"? I would put 70% as the amount of stuff that we cannot control versus 30% towards what we can. Poorer, less educated people would have less control than those who are better off and better educated.
 
there was a runner - Jim Fix I believe - who had a family history of heart disease. His dad died of an attack at about 50... Jim Fix died of a heart attack at about 50 - all that running didn't do him any good.
 
Nature vs nurture can be an awkward split. How about "things we can control to some degree versus those we cannot"? I would put 70% as the amount of stuff that we cannot control versus 30% towards what we can. Poorer, less educated people would have less control than those who are better off and better educated.
Another distinction that doesn't really match up with nature/nurture is something like "determinants of a person's existence and experience in an absolute sense versus determinants of a person's outcomes relative to others." Being born a human and not something else makes the 70 more like 100, but to be fair, it's implied throughout the thread we're talking about the second case where 70-30 seems about right. But it gets complicated by how societal particularities impact what you can control and then these discussions confuse social degrees of freedom with greater or lesser importance of genetics (maybe you're trying to say this by talking about poor people). For example, general intelligence is extremely important to a person's well-being in an absolute sense, while being highly important to their earnings, which becomes about the second case. But if you're in a society where say, effort is the only thing that matters, then the importance of general intelligence to earnings falls, leading people to think nurture "matters" more (and it doesn't have to be effort--just some economic condition where other factors are valued besides intelligence). And so nurture matters a lot, but then you need a qualifier that no one ever introduces. I think most of the time we have these discussions we think we're talking about people when we're really just offering commentary on economic systems. Even if we suppose someone's intelligence isn't valued by their society at all, it still plays an extremely important role in their experience.
 
We are often told by the PC police that the environment someone is raised in is far more important than their hereditary traits. I am willing to believe that, but only with evidence.

Well, you should read up then. Literature has come a long way since eugenics, y'know.

Genes matter a lot, probably more than most people are comfortable with (although far from the only thing). Another super powerful determinate that gets forgotten about is the wealth you're born into.

Wealth is genetical now? Yes, genes matter - if you want offspring. But there's no such thing as ' a criminal gene'. Seriously.
 
Wealth is genetical now? Yes, genes matter - if you want offspring. But there's no such thing as ' a criminal gene'. Seriously.

Not in any direct manner, no. There are, however, genes that impact a person's behaviour indirectly. A small genetic error in the brain can be the difference between someone being a contributing member of society and otherwise being a danger to others.

I like the argument that genetics simply measure one's potential and inclinations while their environment dictates to what length this potential will be reached and whether or not these inclinations will be fulfilled. A genetic inclination towards schizophrenia, for example, may never come to be of relevance if the triggers are avoided.
 
So, in short, genes don't matter in any meaningful way.

They seem to matter a great deal since your genetics failed at providing you the necessary potential in reading comprehension.

Okay, that was mean, but seriously? That's what you took from what I said? You can have the greatest environment to ever bless a human's life and it won't mean diddily if you got handed the short stick genetically. They matter a lot.
 
Nature vs nurture can be an awkward split. How about "things we can control to some degree versus those we cannot"? I would put 70% as the amount of stuff that we cannot control versus 30% towards what we can. Poorer, less educated people would have less control than those who are better off and better educated.
I actually think that is an even more awkward split. Because what we define as "controlled" is ultimately entirely fictional. With genes and environment we at least have a clear understanding what it comes down to.
After all, is there a part that makes you you which can not be traced back to factors entirely out of your control? I don't think there is.
To take responsibility is a real thing.
Responsibility itself is not. Unless we just give up on personal responsibility and say to everything "Thanks Big Bang!"
 
Let's get into the "does free will exist?" debate from here. Great opportunity. I vote it doesn't.
 
The point trying to be made, which is just not true, is that genetics hinders 90% of the human race. Economics has nothing to do with genetics at all, but a means of control for the top 10%.

If we are trying to say that genetics allows the top 10% to have the ability to enslave the other 90% then that is about as wrong as Aryan thinking that produced the Nazis. I realize that we are not signaling out enslavement nor really economic control, but that is the underlying factor. Using genetics is just trying to sugar coat the issue. Genetics is never going to provide equality. Equality is an endeavor that humans are going to have to engineer if they can figure out how to not be so controlling and manipulating.
 
Genetics (Nature) is the floor

Economics (nurture) is the ceiling

If you're healthy, you have decent genetics that will allow a certain minimum - in this case health. Sometimes you'll get a hereditary disease. Your floor is lower. If you're born wealthy, your potential (the ceiling) rises - maybe your genetic disease can be treated or your lifespan extended.

That's a simplified viewpoint anyway.
 
The point trying to be made, which is just not true, is that genetics hinders 90% of the human race. Economics has nothing to do with genetics at all, but a means of control for the top 10%.

If we are trying to say that genetics allows the top 10% to have the ability to enslave the other 90% then that is about as wrong as Aryan thinking that produced the Nazis. I realize that we are not signaling out enslavement nor really economic control, but that is the underlying factor. Using genetics is just trying to sugar coat the issue. Genetics is never going to provide equality. Equality is an endeavor that humans are going to have to engineer if they can figure out how to not be so controlling and manipulating.
It applies overwhelming constraints to 100% of the human race by pre-determining most of their existence and potential experiences. Even if genetics had a small impact on the difference in outcomes between two people, genetics is still determining most things for both people. Nature/nurture discussions obscure just how determined our lives are out of the box.

In reality genetics does play a huge role in creating the differences in outcomes between two individuals, but that could very well be more of a description of what properties of individuals our economic system values. For the sake of actually knowing what life is like in say, the US, this is something I wish more people would accept as true, though an empirical response would be orthogonal to my main point. But anyway, I don't know that anyone here is actually trying to assign a positive value judgment to a highly inequitable economic system based on the observation that a lot of the difference in outcomes between two people is genetically determined. My route would be to do the opposite, because if we know lots of people are screwed from the beginning, we should have a liberal welfare system so as to provide the greatest benefit to people who lose the lottery of birth. If we suppose there's an upper stratum of people who are probably just better off than the lower strata by dumb luck, nothing forces us to say it's ok for the upper stratum to enslave the lower stratum.
 
Of course genetics make us all different. The point where it matters is because there seems to be those "genetically" predisposed to not care about other humans, but only look out for their own interest. That is the inequality that some think economics has a magical way of resolving.
 
I actually think that is an even more awkward split. Because what we define as "controlled" is ultimately entirely fictional. With genes and environment we at least have a clear understanding what it comes down to.
After all, is there a part that makes you you which can not be traced back to factors entirely out of your control? I don't think there is.
To take responsibility is a real thing.
Responsibility itself is not. Unless we just give up on personal responsibility and say to everything "Thanks Big Bang!"
The truth about free will is yet to be resolved and regardless of how it turns out, the perception we all experience is that we do have choices and we act under that premise.

"The illusion of free will is so complete, that it may as well be real." -- Bozo Erectus
 
That is a nice quote. And I think it carries a valuable message for how one should, psychologically, relate to it. In deed, I think a healthy mind can not do without this illusion.
But an illusion strikes me as a bad adviser when discussing how thing actually are and work.

Moreover, we already got a truth about how things work. And in there, there is no room for a free will in a strict sense. Whereas "strict" means: actually free. Not just seemingly free, but actually not really at all.
This truth may be incomplete. There is at least some reason to believe that it is with regards to the mind. But to conclude by that that free will was real means to fill gaps or doubts with unfounded wild speculation.
 
Last edited:
Free will isn't as bewildering when you stop seeing it as a mechanism independent of the rest.
 
Back
Top Bottom