site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

23
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In the world as it is now, you have situations like "kids with fetal alcohol syndrome are more likely to grow up to abuse alcohol, and thus to abuse alcohol during pregnancy, and thus to have kids with FAS". Even if susceptibility to alcoholism has no genetic causes, we would still expect it to have nonzero heritability.

A world that resembles our own in which HBD is entirely false could look like one where there were many behaviors that were passed down in that way. We would expect to see substantial differences in outcomes within different subcultures of the same group in such a world, but I don't have a rigorous idea of how much more than one where the heritability of outcome-correlated stuff is due to genetics vs behavior.

Even if susceptibility to alcoholism has no genetic causes, we would still expect it to have nonzero heritability.

Pretty sure that's zero heritibility, using the technical definition.

Indeed, Falconer's formula would give an estimate of 0 for heritability in the above situation.

So I suppose the concrete answer to "what does the world in which genetics don't play a significant role in determining outcomes look like" is

  1. The children of alcohol abusers are more likely to abuse alcohol themselves

  2. This remains true even if the children are adopted at birth.

  3. The correlation in the rate of alcohol abuse is the same between identical and fraternal twins.

3 is something that it should at least in principle be possible to check in our world. At the very least I would be surprised if nobody has done it for height and BMI.

That is quite a clever metric, thanks for pointing it out.