Re:23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M g...
by hackinthebochs on Friday December 14, 2012 @01:22PM
(#4922335)
Thanks for your detailed response. I originally misunderstood your point, I thought you were essentially arguing a reductionist view of considering genes and only genes. I agree with much of what you have written, although I personally would fall more on the biological determinism side, where our genes constrain our behavior far more than people generally accept. But that's just my personal view and its certainly up for debate.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M g...
by dalke on Friday December 14, 2012 @02:51PM
(#4922911)
My personal view is that the belief in biological determinism is too widespread. Up until the mid-1800s, nurses were often men. Nightingale's views played a big role in making nursing a female dominated field, partially justified by saying that women are naturally nurturers. It's all too easy for people to argue that sex-based, race-based, etc. roles have a biological basis, when it's actually cultural determinism. And we know this because things have changed in timescales that aren't possible under a genetic basis. But it's easier to assume things are because they are than it is to change one self and the views of others.
In any case, I think this thread is nearing the end. I thank you for your participation and consideration.