On 8 December 2010 19:57, Josh Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > 2010/12/8 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]>: > > It's hard to claim that there is nothing genetic about it, though. > > Actually, it is just as easy to claim there is nothing genetic about > it as there is otherwise. Again, I'm not trying to preclude people > exploring the possibilities of this. I just doubt it given the > evidence people have shown. Might as well claim that people from some > poor district in China could not possibly be good at computers, since > there is no evidence that they can be. (I hope everyone sees I don't > feel that way.) > > > > *interest* in this kind of activity is simply not there? Or maybe just a > > matter of taste, like food or color preference? > > I was under the impression that food/color preference is more learned > than genetic.
Yes and no, a preference for sauerkraut vs croissants is almost certainly cultural. On the other hand, lactose tolerance is most definitely genetic. There's no single clear answer. > > > Maybe I could be a great lawyer, I just don't have any interest in that > > profession, and it's probably for genetic and maybe gender related > reasons. > > Or... maybe it is entirely a cultural/upbringing thing. It is > possible that, had more of your friends gone into law related fields, > you would have as well. What if you were to substitute "lawyer" for "mountaineer", what traits might help you here? Higher density of red blood cells and larger more efficient lungs to cope with low oxygen air, smaller nostrils to minimise heat loss when breathing, etc, etc. Surely, nobody is going to claim that any of these traits are cultural. Then again, you don't *need* any of these traits to be a mountaineer, they just increase your likelyhood of succeeding in the profession. They also increase your likelihood of succeeding in other activities that might lead you to an interest in mountaineering in the first place... Why is "lawyer" any different from "mountaineer" then? After all, genes basically just encode proteins (apologies for the simplification), proteins that become neurons, or neurotransmitters, or precursors to the shape of your nostrils, or red blood cells, etc. Why should it be so shocking that mental characteristics are just as prone to genetic variation as physical characteristics? And again, just because some characteristics will increase your chances of being a successful programmer (or mountaineer) doesn't mean that they're an absolute requirement, it's all about probabilities. Finally, humans have 22 chromosomes + 2 sex chromosomes, one of which will be either X or Y - so roughly 2% of your genome. Slightly under half of the genome is in the form of introns (non-encoding, or so-called "junk" DNA), given that the male sex chromosome has been identified as a sight of high mutation rates (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11734898), it's going to have a lower proportion of introns, and so contribute disproportionately to the human phenotype. i.e. *more* than 2% of your genetically expressed characteristics will derive from that chromosome. This makes sense, as we know full well that the chromosome single-handedly contributes to the - quite significant - physical differences between genders. Incidentally, men have larger lungs on average. You gender can, and does, determine a lot of your phenotype. In turn, this will bias you towards being more interested in and more naturally talented at certain skills. Of course you can learn skills outside of this natural predisposition, it's just less likely that you will do so. Genetics will gift you with a certain set of abilities, and your culture/peer group will then steer you towards a certain set of professions, some of which your abilities will make you more suited to. Exactly where you end up is a combination of both factors, but to deny the effect of genetics and gender on this is like denying that the ability to breathe better at high altitudes makes you a better mountaineer. > > Why not extend this line of thought to computer science? > > I'm not against extending the logic, so much as I suspect it is false > entirely. It's not false entirely, but *any* argument taken as an absolute here has got to be wrong... -- Kevin Wright mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
