You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Stuart_Armstrong comments on Genetic "Nature" is cultural too - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 18 March 2016 02:33PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (39)
Tags: nature nurture genetics puzzle culture

Comments (39)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 18 March 2016 04:49:55PM *  1 point [-]

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 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.)

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 18 March 2016 09:53:56PM 0 points [-]

But what exactly is the problem?

Well, not exactly a problem per se, but it transforms an area with a clear though simplified narrative, into a minefield of special cases.

Comment author: Lumifer 21 March 2016 02:43:08PM 1 point [-]

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 :-)

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 22 March 2016 11:00:04AM 0 points [-]

It's a good thing to know, but it's not a good thing :-)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit