[FRIAM] gen'fur

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

Ha! Now you're trolling. The answer is: "because the sites that generate reading ability (or whatever) *also* generate other 'abilities'", with "abilities" in scare quotes because many abilities are considered bad ... like the ability of a pimply faced white dude to shoot up a church or blow up a federal building.

In addition to polyphenism, there's robustness. If more than 1 site generates the same functional ability (reading), then do we write them all? ... just one of them? ... a probabilistically predictive handful of them?

On 9/9/21 10:00 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> So find the sites that correspond to reading ability, or whatever, and WRITE them.  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
> Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 9:51 AM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gen'fur
> 
> I was alerted to this article this morning:
> 
> Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters?
> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters
> 
> It should delight those amongst us who rant about the "woke". 8^D But it dovetails nicely with the fraught concept of equality in the other thread.
> 
> Coincidentally, also on 9/6, the BIAPT announced their early career prize winner Emily McTernan:
> https://www.associationforpoliticalthought.ac.uk/biapt-2021-early-career-prize-winner-dr-emily-mcternan/
> 
> "In her forthcoming monograph, Dr McTernan develops her work on social equality further, to advance a pioneering conceptual account – and robust normative defence – of the phenomenon of ‘taking offence’. Therein, McTernan contends, we should understand taking offence, under appropriate conditions, as a civic virtue rather than a vice, as an emotion that embodies the resistance of social inequalities within a community."
> 
> 
> On 9/8/21 8:06 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> From about a cancer rate of 10% (without mutation) to 50% (with) but it depends on the BRCA variant.
>>
>> https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_canc
>> er.htm 
>> <https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_can
>> cer.htm>
>>
>>> On Sep 8, 2021, at 4:07 PM, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> Is the Braca gene that little correlated with breast cancer?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Frank C. Wimberly
>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>>>
>>> 505 670-9918
>>> Santa Fe, NM
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 4:57 PM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Yeah, it is hard to get excited about “unusual” variance.   
>>> Modern classification algorithms like gradient boosting make it 
>>> possible to predict phenotypes, and to me that is a lot more 
>>> interesting (and still possible to deconstruct).____
>>>
>>>     __ __
>>>
>>>     *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles
>>>     *Sent:* Wednesday, September 8, 2021 3:53 PM
>>>     *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
>>>     *Subject:* [FRIAM] gen'fur____
>>>
>>>     __ __
>>>
>>>     Gen'fur this, gen'fur that... and also the realities of biological complexity.... 
>>>     ____


-- 
☤>$ uǝlƃ