Why DNA matters for social equality with Kathryn Paige Harden

Подписаться 74 тыс.

Просмотров 3,6 тыс.

50% 1

Science & Cocktails is proud to present a unique episode with Kathryn Paige Harden, superstar psychologist and behavior geneticist, author of the book "The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality". If you have never though deeply about whether DNA has anything to do with how much luck you have in life, this is your opportunity.
Did your DNA sequence really make a difference in your life? Are genes destiny? Are genes linked to social income? What about eugenics? How do we avoid harming people? How do we use genetics for good? What do we need to do to prepare for the future?
"The ultimate claim of The Genetic Lottery is an extraordinarily ambitious act of moral entrepreneurialism. Harden argues that an appreciation of the role of simple genetic luck-alongside all the other arbitrary lotteries of birth-will make us, as a society, more inclined to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to enjoy lives of dignity and comfort."- Gideon Lewis-Kraus, New Yorker
In recent years, scientists have shown that DNA makes us different, in our personalities and in our health-and in ways that matter for educational and economic success in our current society. Can our increasing understanding help us to make society a fairer place, or does focusing on genetics put us at risk of the dark temptations of eugenics and genetic determinism?
As part of her appearance for Science & Cocktails, Harden will present the lengthy research that acted as the basis for the book, work which has been featured, among other, in the New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic, and Huffington Post. Harden introduces us to the latest genetic science, dismantling dangerous ideas about racial superiority and challenging us to grapple with what equality really means in a world where people are born different. Weaving together personal stories with scientific evidence, Harden shows why our refusal to recognize the power of DNA perpetuates the myth of meritocracy, and argues that we must acknowledge the role of genetic luck if we are ever to create a fair society.
For more science visit:
• Website: www.scienceandcocktails.org
• Facebook: / scienceandcocktailscph
• RU-vid: / sciencecocktails
• Instagram: / scienceandcocktailsglobal

Наука

Опубликовано:

14 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 31

@joshuagraham9217 2 года назад

Why was the title changed from equity to equality

@Gilafax 2 года назад

I missed the science part

@TiagoSilva-dq5uq 2 года назад

Couldn't understand, sorry. Did not see science here. There is no such thing as equality. There are not 2 identical people, even Twins. Let's see how that thinking works. Let's imagine The olimpicks. How would One with One leg Run fairly againts 2 legged people? What about, One that didn't train as hard because of some trouble, would it be fair canceling The competition because of you? I did like The elevator perspective.

@ovoj 2 года назад

Hahahaha. 10 mins in and I can already see why the R's are gonna be triggered

@CandidDate 2 года назад

So imagine we could map and put into accessible computer memory the exact molecular composition of a human ovum and yolk. Now a sperm comes along and fertilizes this ovum. The sperm cell's complete genome and molecular composition are also in the computer memory. Now, play this simulation in the computer. From one cell, to two cells, to four cells, to eight, etc. What would we learn about how a human is formed from the moment of fertilization? The trouble would come when the yolk is all used up and the mother's input of nutrients begins, but we could form a data set of just such a possible molecular composite. I'm talking how does a DNA molecule form a ribosome which in turn forms proteins which in turn form cells, etc. Every molecule in the ovum and yolk is translated by the mother's and father's DNA into the proteins that form the human body. Every bone, nerve, vein and artery, organ, neuroanatomy, etc. would be traceable from yolk to mother's nutrients in the computer memory. This simulation would then be 100% similar to the human being in question. Have a think!

@psychicspy Год назад

It might simulate the physical body, but it would fall short in predicting personalities, due to the quantum variability of the human brain.

@BigAura 2 года назад

Still there is no such thing as free-will

@mikebreeden6071 2 года назад

And you still have no definition of free will. It is simply a religious term with no objective meaning outside of that.

@mikeobrien3744 2 года назад

Stop with the cocktails and you will learn there is no science here.

@ovoj 2 года назад

Hahahaha. 10 mins in and I can already see why the R's are gonna be triggered

@ikik3406 2 года назад

Ik heb nu 17 minuten gekeken en ik krijg hier gewoon walg neigingen van...

@haveyouseenchefplis932 2 года назад

Zo oppervlakkig als het is, het is toch een waarheid. Alles is al voorbestemd voordat je bestond, ik heb het niet over het religieuze concept, maar meer over hoe natuurlijke selectie werkt. Een persoon met meer middelen dan jij zal in de meeste gevallen (en bijna altijd) meer geluk hebben dan jij, zowel door de uitkomst als door de definitie van 'vindingrijk' woord zelf.

@ikik3406 2 года назад

@@haveyouseenchefplis932 Dat een stoeptegen grijs is is ook een waarheid, willekeurige feitjes zijn niet interessant. "Alles is voorbestemt" dit is maar gedeeltelijk waar... De toekomst is potentieël. Ik geloof dat wij de toekomst zelf in onze handen hebben. Het verleden staat vast, de toekomst niet. Dingen moeten niet gebeuren, dingen kunnen gebeuren. En ja ik ben bekent met Sam Harris en zijn gedachtes over vrije wil. Maar ik sta aan de kant van Jordan Peterson en de kracht van het menselijk brein dat de toekomst maakbaar is. Mensen kunnen kiezen wat ze doen aan de hand van meerdere hypothetische scenarios door te denken... Niet alles is gepreconditioneert.

@haveyouseenchefplis932 2 года назад

je commentaar is "shadowbanned" door youtube.

@ikik3406 2 года назад

@@haveyouseenchefplis932 Weet ik. Ik heb de laatste tijd ook ineens allemaal last van bot comments over porno enzo...

@haveyouseenchefplis932 2 года назад

@@ikik3406 geen zorgen, ik heb je reactie gelezen. het staat nog steeds op mijn meldingstabblad. Ja, de toekomst heeft altijd potentieel, het feit dat je zegt dat het mijn argumenten alleen maar kracht bijzet. Het belangrijkste probleem was. "Hoe ver dat potentieel kan gaan als je niet eens de kans hebt om de reeds bestaande systemen opnieuw vorm te geven" het is alsof je een idioot hebt die wil concurreren in wiskunde, terwijl mensen in zulke instellingen een persoon met een hoge hersencapaciteit nodig hebben. (dit is overdreven, maar je hebt het idee). Hoewel de actie eervol lijkt, is het gewoon onmogelijk. zo'n gelijkheid kan alleen in utopie bestaan. als je het met jp eens bent, zou je ook erkennen dat hij onrechtvaardige "gelijkheid" veracht en "gelijkheid door kansen" ondersteunt. het spijt me echt voor je moeite, misschien is het tijd dat je RU-vid verlaat?. Ik heb ook een hekel aan hun nieuwe beleid. ze zijn te agressief met hun censuur en "leftist" agenda. Ik heb mijn youtube-verslaving niet kunnen stoppen, wens me succes!

@psychicspy Год назад

The environment did not shape the personalities of those mice. Their environment allowed their natural - genetically influenced - personalities to express themselves. Human personality is 30-60% heritable according to twin and adoption studies. It would be interesting to repeat the mouse experiment and carefully monitor the stress levels of every mouse before and after being introduced to the second environment. Most likely you would find that those mice who's personalities moved towards the outer edges of the personality bell curve were the ones least suited to the first environment as measured by their stress levels before and after the transition.

@nadiahassan569 Год назад

Vukasović, T., & Bratko, D. (2015). Heritability of personality: A meta-analysis of behavior genetic studies. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 769-785. This study finds closer to 50% with twins and 22% with adoption studies. Recent DNA based findings tend to have lower estimates. The environment almost certainly did shape the personalities of at least some of those mice. Research has documented the kinds of effects you discuss, and the estimates of genetic influence on the mice are a lot lower.

@natrajdravid8935 2 года назад

It doesn't.

@mikebreeden6071 2 года назад

I'm afraid that the problem is worse than the author says, partly for different reasons though. What she says is true but in terms of genetics there is another problem. What we call human progress is the removal of natural selection. At the same time we have reduced natural selection, various factors such as older parents have increased the mutation rate. No species can survive the genetic load that will lead to. There is an ethical, economical way to solve the problem though by husbanding our genes. The technology exists in its infancy, pioneered by Dr. Dagen Wells. Nature can only select agaisnt "bad" genes, not for good ones. Humans can select for good genes such that children could inherit the best genes of both parents. Everyone could have superior health, beauty and brains. Nature simply cannot do that. Then you can have a kind of genetic equality. We can also take advantage of the great genetic wealth represented by ethnic variation. Racism would become meaningless. It's also not about some elite taking advantage of genetic technology. It would be relatively cheap and it is needed by anyone that use genes to reproduce. It would also help humanity to adapt to the unknown new ecology we have entered when we created the farms and cities of civilization. If you want to read the story, it is called "Genetics For A New Human Ecology (Transition)" www.amazon.com/dp/1544900996 or you can watch an older version at RU-vid. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wjVieFKevMk.html By the way, human characteristics are less polygenic than she says because natural selection is just a simpler control system than that. It's not that complicated.

@trumpone4443 2 года назад

Only dumb people would confuse this with science. Also Kendrick Lamar isn't a scientific source, yes I understand analogous literature. Also were these the " german" twin studies?

@ovoj 2 года назад

Hahahaha. 10 mins in and I can already see why the R's are gonna be triggered

@ThomMarchbank 2 года назад

This is absolutely science-quite complex and sophisticated science, especially with the GWAS that Harden refers to, and Kendrick Lamar was a rhetorical hook to get the audience interested. I think you’re missing quite a few things here.

@trumpone4443 2 года назад

@@ThomMarchbank just, no Thom. This is a 8th grade paper with high school level video production.

@trumpone4443 2 года назад

@@ThomMarchbank Tom using 2 dollar words adding up to nothing, is what rubes do. her arguments are not persuasive or effectively supported. Go back to the drawing board or bridge or basement your mom's worried sick.