
The ‘Geno-Economists’ Say DNA Can Predict Our Chances of Success - mcenedella
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/16/magazine/tech-design-economics-genes.html
======
olliej
To an extent that’s true - genetics can detect your race and gender, both of
which have a very strong correlation (although definitely not causation) with
success.

That said ever since we have been able to run genetic tests people have tried
to use them to demonstrate that group A is “worse” than everyone else, or the
group B is superior. Before that they tried to use phrenology. In every case
they successfully came up with a measurement that demonstrated that some group
was inferior.

Weirdly the measurements confirmed stereotypes of the time, it’s almost like
there was some kind of external bias effecting their results...

~~~
robotrout
Those studied in this article were all white.

~~~
olliej
You’re aware that race doesn’t mean “white” vs “black” right?

While obviously these systems were used to justify treating non-white races as
being fundamentally inferior, it was also used against other groups (“proving”
that the Irish and scots were predisposed to drunkenness, etc).

The idea of racism being purely a skin color concept is relatively recent.
Look at the historic treatment of the Irish, welsh, and Scottish in Britain
over the last few millennia - or Italians up until the the mid to early 1900s.
The treatment of people from Eastern Europe, the polish, today.

All of these races can be distinguished genetically - or even through external
features.

Similar discrimination occurs other countries among people with the same skin
colour- I’m sure countries like China and Japan could point to “objective”
measures like genetics that can be not related to negative aspects of groups
they discriminate against.

------
nyrulez
Unless we have a complete picture of "success", which means:

\- How much of our behavior, habits, intelligence and success comes from the
environment ?

\- How much of stuff like education levels, income levels come from birth,
social and environmental factors?

\- How epigenetics shapes our life in a dynamic fashion? This field is pretty
new, and we have just begin to understand it.

\- What is intelligence or success in the first place ? How do you measure it
that is all encompassing and diverse ? I have never seen a solid definition of
that. Should we care about their definition of success? Can there ever be one
definition of success for all groups? My own personal definition has changed
over the years.

\- Is Gene state correlated state or unchangeable predictors (which I
extremely doubt in light of above points)

\- Has there been a complete study of exceptions?

all of this is extremely reductionist at best and trying to push a malicious
self serving agenda at the worst which can cause havoc in hands of any stupid
policy makers.

From what I understand, we are very far off from getting a full picture of
these questions. At least decades away if not more.

~~~
asianthrowaway
Points 1 2 and 4 are pretty well studied in academia concerning intelligence.
Intelligence is defined as "g", and it's 60 to 80% heritable depending on the
study (leaning towards 80%).

More info for the curious:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_\(psychometrics\))

~~~
nabla9
It's easy to misunderstand what heritable or even genetically heritable means.

Consider just few hypothetical ways genes can increase g-factor:

* Metabolic trait increases nutrition intake in high calorie low nutrition junk food environment. This leads to faster brain development.

* Improved immune system against certain parasites that makes individual healthier and leads to statistically higher g-factor.

Genes that improve intelligence can change from generation to generation and
be different in different geographic areas.

~~~
asianthrowaway
Huh, what? Are you talking about the appearance of new genetic mutations? I
think evolutionary timescales are a bit longer than a few generations.

Anyway, I don't understand how this is supposed to explain what heritability
is...

~~~
nabla9
No. I was talking about existing genes interacting with rapidly changing
environment.

------
nonbel
Combining GWAS data with social science... sounds like a recipe for generating
incorrect conclusions from noise to me.

>"before the Human Genome Project had fully sequenced human DNA"

The human genome is still not complete by any normal definition, they just
redefined "complete" to mean "we did our best". It is like if someone turns in
homework with only half the questions answered and argues they should get 100%
since they "completed" it.

~~~
searine
>The human genome is still not complete by any normal definition

Well considering that the human genome is a moving target, it can never be
"complete". However, it can be 99.9% complete, which is all but complete for
all scientific intents and purposes. The rest is just semantics.

~~~
Avshalom
[https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/our-human-
reference-...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/our-human-reference-
genome-is-missing-a-lot-of-material/)

------
jvanderbot
It seems clear to me that the role of genetics is to prepare you to
survive/thrive in your parents' (and grandparents') environment. I would
assume that as the environment changes over time, that the genetic makeup of
their children would change (over generations), due to varying demands and
"marrying up." Maybe environmental changes are limited to epigenetic changes,
and "marrying up" produces the real genome variation, but still, the story is
more complicated.

A short-sighted focus on "keeping people where their genes fit" ignores our
tendency to improve our communities by conscious effort, up to and (by
collaboration) beyond our innate capabilities.

I really dislike the focus on the individual and the "sorting problem", as
distinct from the focus on community.

------
robotrout
When we constantly pound the table and shout that all people are all exactly
the same, they often self-identify as oppressed victims, if they look around
themselves and see others that are better off than they are.

This is a recipe for societal tension, although it is handy in politics.

Minorities and non-minorities alike, after having been assured that everybody
is exactly the same, often feel that they have been cheated in some way. This
is sadly often used by politicians to marshal them against their fellow
citizens in the next election or referendum.

------
SubiculumCode
Things are too conflated in society to really get around gene vs
societal/circumstantial-pressures on success. However, I can see animal models
with random assignment uncovering genes that help animals solve tasks.
Comparing identified genes from animal models with frequencies in human
populations would seem a fruitful path (even if we may not like some of the
answers), that I am sure is being done already.

------
clavalle
From the paper itself:

>it suggests that the GWAS effect-size estimates may be biased upward by
correlation between educational attainment and a rearing envi-ronment
conducive to educational attainment.

A full 60% of the already modest 'effect' of correlated genes can be
immediately attributed to environment according to their sibling study.

------
turtlecloud
Isn’t this obvious?

I mean height is one of the largest factors of success for men. If being of
smaller stature that is when a Napoleon complex forms.

Just extrapolate dating economics for shorter guys and that pretty much sums
up society.

I would say heightism is one of the largest biases currently still allowable.

------
hirundo
> All men are created equal.

\- U.S. Declaration of Independence

The above statement is false. That's more clear than ever and geno-economics
contributes to that clarity. If you live your life by this assumption you will
get many important things wrong.

Yet this clearly wrong statement, as applied to the operation of the rule of
law, is also one of the most brilliant, important and useful concepts invented
by civilization. As a proposition for how to engineer law to support a
flourishing society, it is true and right.

I think that's the right way to deal with this controversy. Acknowledge that
people have significant and important differences that are beyond their
control, while also acknowledging that such difference can be overwhelmed by
the effects of their nurturing and other controllable differences, such that
it's better to judge them holistically and personally when that data is
available.

~~~
vtange
That line is taken out of context a lot - the Declaration of Independence does
not try to assert that all humans are equal in ability, its main focus was to
state that all humans have equal rights to their life, liberty and freedom to
pursue happiness. That means that even if a human is weaker, or even disabled,
he or she still has equal rights to a human who is in good health.

~~~
tynpeddler
Yes and no. Classical liberalism uses the assumed equality of all people to
argue that the people are capable of and ought to engage in self rule. If by
some miracle of science we can prove that this presumed equality is mostly
false, then you can begin to attack the fundamental justification for self
rule. There is a lot of complexity here (for example, what does it even mean
for for a disabled person to have an equal right to good health?) and this
discussion could go for days, but assumed equality is a huge foundational
point for classical liberalism.

~~~
pdonis
_> Classical liberalism uses the assumed equality of all people to argue that
the people are capable of and ought to engage in self rule._

"Equality" in the sense of equal rights, yes. Not in the sense of equal
capabilities. Classical liberalism, as exemplified in documents like the
Declaration of Independence, was based on the idea that, even though people
have differences in ability, those differences do not give any person a right
to rule over any other person. That's where the justification for "self rule"
comes from.

Since this reasoning already recognizes that people have differences in
ability, "science" showing that people have differences in ability (did we
really need "science" to tell us this? isn't it obvious?) does not invalidate
the reasoning at all.

------
rbanffy
If you have the DNA of a billionaire, you'll probably be successful. If you
have the same postal address, that's also likely.

------
starbeast
I bet it can. It can also tell you how much you are likely to inherit and what
network of people you are linked to as well.

~~~
hirundo
> It can also tell you how much you are likely to inherit and what network of
> people you are linked to as well.

Only to the extent that your parents have the same DNA. The point is that
economic success is strongly correlated to genetics independently of social
position and nurturing.

Of course this will be controversial; it's the same kind of conclusion that
spurred the Soviet Union to promote Lysenkoism and suppress Darwinism.

~~~
shubb
Here in the UK, about 1000 years ago, the French invaded and took over,
siezing control of the (basically German) population by replacing the top
level of society.

Suddely, the lords were French and the serfs were German.

1000 years later, you can predict someones socio-economic level by surname.
French surnames do better than German ones. Surnames linked by blood to
royalty do better than both.

1000 years. Lack of social mobility overrides genetics?

[I'm sure you can do better than this link but its what I found:
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/842...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8424904/People-
with-Norman-names-wealthier-than-other-Britons.html)]

~~~
TangoTrotFox
Like many things here though there's a chicken and egg type scenario. Society
mostly started with increasingly isolated tribal groups. Over time, and lots
of killing, the most successful groups started to form into larger and larger
groups. And the most successful individuals among these most successful groups
were in turn on top of the top. At some point leadership implied what was an
extremely high probability of a genetic advantage. And that advantage can
persist through the centuries. It can also deteriorate.

A great example of this is the House of Habsburg. [1] They were one of the
most powerful families in history completely dominating Europe politics with
lineages of kings and emperors throughout the entire continent for some 5
centuries, including holding the throne of the Holy Roman Empire for more than
300 years. But the reason they're an interesting example is because they're
also the namesake of the Habsburg Jaw - a genetic deformity that was greatly
exaggerated in the family through the years due to excessive inbreeding. If
you've seen a cartoon depiction of royalty they often are drawn with the
extreme protruding chin, which is a reference to this deformity and family in
particular.

That family was almost certainly _extremely_ genetically fit at one point. But
through excessive inbreeding they destroyed their own genetic lineage. In
Spain this was especially pronounced with Charles II. [2] He was described as
"short, lame, epileptic, senile, and bald before 35." He learned to talk at
age 4, walk at 8. His Habsburg Jaw was so extreme he could not chew his own
food. He, unsurprisingly, died childless at the age of 35 - ending 200 years
of Habsburg rule in Spain. And to emphasize -- this is just one example. This
family did not just rule Spain. They had lasting dynasties in Germany,
Hungary, Croatia, England, Boehmia, Ireland, Portugal, and many other nations.

Today, the entire house of Habsburg is extinct.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Habsburg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Habsburg)

[2] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain)

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Only the male line died out. The Habsburg-Lorraine cadet branch took over and
although they don't actually rule any countries since WWI, they are still
quite wealthy and well-connected.

------
smallscientist
If they were smart economists, they would have pushed the words together to
say “genoconomists”

~~~
claudiawerner
In the same way as 'econophysics' which is a fascinating field in itself.

------
comonad-colaboy
Time to rewatch Gattaca I suppose

------
EamonnMR
Geno-Economist is an interesting way to spell eugenicist.

