ernst_10

There is always bias in the userbase, people usually watch content on their side of the political agenda for example. How do you know the so-called "brigade" isn't actually bringing things closer to public opinion?

Also are we talking about global opinion? A lot of people outside of the western world aren't as big fans of LGBT for example, so if we want to make things more objective those videos should have even more downvotes and hateful messages. And if we're being consistent with what google currently does, these videos should be banned sometimes for hurting others (ex. religious) feelings. People are ok with downvotes and banning, but only if it panders to their current subjective moral fashions.

It is in the english language.

> the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.

Regardless the parent was talking about someone sharing more detailed criticism.

So criticism and encouraging people to consider the criticism? What is wrong with that?

> piles of credentials and active practices with tens of thousands of satisfied patients

This doesn't constitute strong evidence and isn't how science works.

> This is, for both scientific and political reasons, a very difficult area to work in, and I don’t believe the evidence is in to either support or rebut that claim.

The default position should be a heavy bias towards believing the genetic explanation is at least somewhat correct. Within group heritability may not directly imply between group heritability, but it makes it very likely. The left is too intellectually dishonest to admit that.

jlawson is correct, it's been basically game over for the strong environmentalist position since Lasker et al 2019.

> all they are doing is selecting for folks who "cheat" by being able to memorize massive amount of leetcode questions

This takes an extremely high level of cognitive ability, which is a far, far better signal than a take-home test.

I don't think many medical scientists support any functional medicine practice. I have no doubt much of the medical industry is extremely corrupt, but I have a hard time believing nearly all medical scientists are working against peoples best interests.

The two people you mentioned seem to be regarded negatively by the scientific community.

Dr. Mark Hyman

> He was the editor-in-chief of, and is a contributing editor to, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine.

Looking at that journal it's definitely filled with crank nonsense.

And Dr. Gundry I assume is Steven Gundry, who is best known for false claims about lectins.

If most data is common between people, then storing the diffs should be cheap.

No it isn't. Groups of people obviously have different genes. For example, some East Africans are far better at sprinting. Does admitting that make me racist against non-east africans? Do you believe African-Americans dominate basketball due to racism against non African-Americans?

Racism is about treating people like racial caricatures instead of individuals. Which is what you're doing.

How was it inaccurate?

> I think the biggest risk of being oversold right now are the "polygenic risk scores" being used for various quantitative traits, which fail to generalize very well.

How do the hits from large scale GWAS fail to generalize within a population? Why would you get worse models with more advanced techniques, presumably the more advanced techniques would only be used instead of the simple ones if they are proven to work.

> but genetic testing is used extenstively and effectually by functional medicine practictioners every day

You mean this functional medicine? Or are you using the term in a different way?

> Functional medicine is a form of alternative medicine that encompasses a number of unproven and disproven methods and treatments.

> It has been described as pseudoscience,[5] quackery,[6] and at its essence a rebranding of complementary and alternative medicine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_medicine

How do you justify racism against asians, who are the most affected group by these discriminatory policies, when they are often poor and somehow quickly rise with good scores?

Obviously, it's not historical overt racism holding black people behind asian people, it's genetics. The real overt, disgusting racism is "affirmative action".