Scientists claim they can predict sexual orientation with 70% probability from genes.[Sensationalism
58 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sableye;48870297]most pro-lifers don't have a problem with capital punishment anyways, so they're already hypocrites[/quote]
there's zero contradiction.
How do such genes even proliferate ?
they don't
[QUOTE=kurgan;48872692]they don't[/QUOTE]
So basically every time they appear it's due to a mutation?
Seeing as how [url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx]only 3.8% of people are gay[/url], I can predict someone's sexuality with 96.2% probability based on one chromosome
[QUOTE=_Axel;48872734]So basically every time they appear it's due to a mutation?[/QUOTE]
no I mean it isn't genetic, not directly at least
[QUOTE=kurgan;48867687]this is not true. personality is substantially heritable, and parental environmental influence can be almost completely ruled out from the non-heritable part.
the idea that parenting significantly alters the development of children's personalities is a very recent one. it only really kicked off in the early 20th century alongside other highly dubious psychological claims.[/QUOTE]
That's absolutely ridiculous.
The very fact that people's personalities can and do change all throughout their lives proves that it's not primarily based on heredity.
There are certainly inherited factors that have a big effect, but no more than that.
And are you seriously implying that pre 20th century psychology is more accurate?
an allele that made you homosexual would never get off the ground, nevermind get to 1% or 2% or whatever the true figure is.
[editline]10th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=elowin;48872828]That's absolutely ridiculous.
The very fact that people's personalities can and do change all throughout their lives proves that it's not primarily based on heredity.[/quote]
no, it doesn't. the exact opposite, in fact.
the heritability of most traits increases throughout the organism's lifetime, this is a banal, well-replicated and in hindsight, obvious finding in genetics.
[quote]And are you seriously implying that pre 20th century psychology is more accurate?[/QUOTE]
folk intuitions about the mind were better than (most of) what the first wave of psychologists came up with.
modern science surpasses both, but early psychology was worse than useless.
[QUOTE=elowin;48872828]And are you seriously implying that pre 20th century psychology is more accurate?[/QUOTE]
Up until as late as the 1960s, a lot of psychology was more or less psychoanalysis, a form of psuedoscience developed by arguably the second worst Austrian in history (the worst Austrian being Francis II)
[QUOTE=kurgan;48872831]folk intuitions about the mind were better than (most of) what the first wave of psychologists came up with.
modern science surpasses both, but early psychology was worse than useless.[/QUOTE]
I agree that early psychologists were bullshit, but they began in the late 19th century, so I thought you were somehow implying they were better than the ones that popped up slightly later.
[QUOTE=kurgan;48872831]no, it doesn't. the exact opposite, in fact.
the heritability of most traits increases throughout the organism's lifetime, this is a banal, well-replicated and in hindsight, obvious finding in genetics.[/QUOTE]
This is still total bullshit, though.
The effect the environment has on people is absolutely astronomical. By adulthood it is a much larger factor than any inherited traits.
[QUOTE=elowin;48873017]This is still total bullshit, though.
The effect the environment has on people is absolutely astronomical. By adulthood it is a much larger factor than any inherited traits.[/QUOTE]
not really.
[img]http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2012/06/T1.large_.jpeg[/img]
note how all the personality scores have a big fat "No" for shared environment. that means parental influence = zilch
("non-shared environment" isn't like environmental factors you might be thinking of. it's mostly just developmental noise)
Pretty interesting stuff.
I think if this actually goes anywhere it could lead to some pretty tough ethical debates though whether if people should be allowed to test for homosexuality or if they should be able to act upon that knowledge. You can bet this would be abused by people who want to live the 'standard' family life and want to end up having grandchildren.
and heritability of traits increases with age almost by definition. think about it.
the table above shows it for IQ, but it works for most things. height for instance.
And I sit caring only enough to comment on my apathy.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48873004]Up until as late as the 1960s, a lot of psychology was more or less psychoanalysis, a form of psuedoscience developed by arguably the second worst Austrian in history (the worst Austrian being Francis II)[/QUOTE]
Wow.
Sigmund Freud is literally worse than Hitler?
I heard something about demethylation of genes having something to do with gender dysphorias, alternate genders and sexualities, but I never really looked into it, could this have something to do with it?
[QUOTE=kurgan;48871762]there's zero contradiction.[/QUOTE]
Most "Pro-Lifers" are right wingers in favor of the death penalty that oppose social programs that would improve the quality of life of poor children.
I see massive contradictions everywhere.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48873211]Most "Pro-Lifers" are right wingers in favor of the death penalty that oppose social programs that would improve the quality of life of poor children.
I see massive contradictions everywhere.[/QUOTE]
there isn't any contradiction between being in favor of capital punishment and being against abortion.
let me spell it out for you: capital punishment is the killing of a person found guilty of a crime, abortion is the killing of an innocent child.
there is a world of difference between the two. you might disagree with both points but please, at least try to understand your opponent's worldview instead of inventing ridiculous strawmen.
[editline]10th October 2015[/editline]
I mean, I could literally make the inverse point:
"most 'pro-choicers' are left-wingers against the death penalty"
and again it wouldn't be contradictory. the pro-choice side doesn't recognize the personhood of unborn babies, so they can consistently claim to be against killing people.
Gattaca when?
I understand why Freud is taught as wrong in history; he believed some erraneous things. But I don't understand why he's villified the way he is. There were plenty of people who thought things way crazier than him. I don't see why he's singled out as some sort of evil anti-scientist. He was going with what he thought based on what progress they had at the time: absolutely nothing. I mean, ignoring his psychosexual stuff, can you really argue with much of what he said? No you can't; not because he was right but because he was unvarifiable (you can't measure an ego or subconscious). He's considered pseudo-scientific not because he was wrong but because psychoanalysis doesn't meet Popper's falsifiability principle. At worst, Freud was wrong. At best, Freud was a philosopher rather than a scientist. But I don't think anywhere in there could he be qualified as one of the worst Austrians who ever lived; certainly not comparable to the emperor of the holy roman empire or adolf hitler. I think psych undergrads just have it drilled into their head that Sigmund Freud singlehandedly set science back 1000 years and is worse than the dark ages so they mindlessly parrot it back because they're psych undergrads and just repeat what they hear. They don't villify Jung, even though he believed things way [b]way[/b] crazier than Freud (Psychic abilities, alchemy).
[QUOTE=benbb;48873086]
I think if this actually goes anywhere it could lead to some pretty tough ethical debates though whether if people should be allowed to test for homosexuality[/QUOTE]
It'd be really strange. Right wingers having to choose between abortion or having a gay son/daughter. Liberals having to choose between being pro-choice and being against the discrimination of gays.
[QUOTE=kurgan;48873295]I mean, I could literally make the inverse point:
"most 'pro-choicers' are left-wingers against the death penalty"[/QUOTE]
Pro-[B]lifers[/B] being in support of the government [B]killing[/B] people is pretty hypocritical. Pro-choicers not wanting to do so is really nothing.
Pro-lifers being against using the government to increase the quality of life of children that have already been born is also extremely hypocritical.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48873430]Pro-[B]lifers[/B] being in support of the government [B]killing[/B] people is pretty hypocritical. Pro-choicers not wanting to do so is really nothing.[/QUOTE]
the term "pro-life" is a rhetorical shorthand for one side in a specific issue. the idea that it accurately describes its proponents' entire worldview is retarded.
it's like arguing with Repbulicans by saying they're not adhering to the principles of classical republicanism, or saying the Tories shouldn't have let the Scotland referendum happen because their official name is the "Conservative and [i]Unionist[/i] Party"
engage with what people actually think and say, not make cheap shots at the terms used to describe them.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48873430]It'd be really strange. Right wingers having to choose between abortion or having a gay son/daughter.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, can you point to a single person who's against abortion on principle and would even consider doing it to a gay son or daughter? I think people forget that original sin is a fairly foundational tenet of Christian theology. Even if gayness were in the same category as every other sin (It isn't for anyone who actually studies their religion. Nowhere does the Bible say that being gay is a sin.), then a gay child would be, at most, in the same spot as everyone else as far as being sinful goes.
[QUOTE=benbb;48873086]Pretty interesting stuff.
I think if this actually goes anywhere it could lead to some pretty tough ethical debates though whether if people should be allowed to test for homosexuality or if they should be able to act upon that knowledge. You can bet this would be abused by people who want to live the 'standard' family life and want to end up having grandchildren.[/QUOTE]
If we go with the premise that the mother should have complete control over her own body and as a result don't need to provide any justification to undergo an abortion, the reasoning behind her decision really shouldn't matter.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48867518]I don't agree, if it was a choice people wouldn't fucking do it because for much of history it was punishable by death or being tortured to death.[/QUOTE]
i dont think he meant it was a conscious choice, but rather the sum of different choices you make and different experiences you have.
[QUOTE=benbb;48873086]You can bet this would be abused by people who want to live the 'standard' family life and want to end up having grandchildren.[/QUOTE]
Why abused? Being able to choose if you want to keep or abort before it's a baby is great. I mean why would someone consciously choose to have a homosexual child?
Even if the 70% accuracy claim were true, it would be totally useless in practice. According to the CDC, only about 3% of the US population is gay, lesbian or bisexual. That means that if you assume the modal condition (straight) in every case you'll commit errors only 3% of the time. Using the methods involved with this experiment produces errors 30% of the time.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48873004]Up until as late as the 1960s, a lot of psychology was more or less psychoanalysis, a form of psuedoscience developed by arguably the second worst Austrian in history (the worst Austrian being Francis II)[/QUOTE]
Freud's a fraud?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.