= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Genetic "Nature" is cultural too - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (39)
You might want to distinguish between abilities and outcomes. What's heritable is abilities. The environment determines how these abilities get translated into outcomes.
This does get confusing because some abilities are hard to measure directly and because a lot of studies do look at outcomes (which, of course, are easier to observe). But when thinking about such things you should keep the difference in your mind.
That's the problem - abilities include "being better at your job" and "seeming to be better at your job", both of which correspond to better individual outcomes, but not both better for outcomes overall.
But what exactly is the problem? Yes, multiple different abilities can lead to the same outcomes so you can't identify a specific ability just by looking at the outcome. But that's how the world works. There are ways to estimate which ability led to this outcome, but they typically involve more effort. I assume you're familiar with the causality field (Pearl, etc.)
Well, not exactly a problem per se, but it transforms an area with a clear though simplified narrative, into a minefield of special cases.
If the "clear though simplified narrative" is wrong, that's a good thing :-)
It's a good thing to know, but it's not a good thing :-)