undefined

points

[-]

The belabored point of the article is that heritability isn't fixed. In the past there were highly variable rates of malnutrition which created a major environmental factor for height, as well as many other traits, which would reduce their heritability. But as malnutrition faded and most environmental factors that significantly affect height faded, differences in populations became increasingly determined by genetics, and so its heritability increased.

by lo_zamoyski27 days ago|

prev|

[-]

> I've never found a satisfactory explanation

You don't find better nutrition and sexual selection for height satisfactory?

> value depends on context (and is generally made up).

Value is not relative. It is objective, ontological, and teleological. Context only shifts situational value relevance, but the value itself remains as is.

by underlipton27 days ago|

parent|

[-]

>You don't find better nutrition and sexual selection for height satisfactory?

A few centuries aren't long enough for such marked selective pressure on a polygenic trait.

>Value is not relative. It is objective, ontological, and teleological.

I am conflating objective measurements (value) with subjective situational qualifications of the relevance of those measurements (also "value", kinda) because most people understand that I mean the latter. I acknowledge your pedantic correction of this conflation; please feel good about yourself and move on with your day.

by inglor_cz26 days ago|

parent|

[-]

"A few centuries aren't long enough for such marked selective pressure on a polygenic trait."

Are you sure? In extremis, if blue-eyed people (a polygenic trait) are considered absolutely unfuckable, I would expect them to disappear from the population in 10-15 generations, or at least become very, very rare.

by underlipton25 days ago|

parent|

[-]

We don't have to turn to ill-conceived hypotheticals; we have an accounting of the actual history, and there was no Cull-and-Denial of the Short Kings in Holland. Their society just got richer and more egalitarian and everyone started biking a lot. Thus, everyone's kids grew taller.

by amanaplanacanal26 days ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Given the wide variety in personal taste, there are almost no people that are completely unfuckable.

by inglor_cz26 days ago|

parent|

[-]

In a society that gives you a lot of personal freedom, yes. But that is a very recent thing.

Most historic societies regulated relations between men and women tightly. Imagine that this was a caste-like prohibition. We know that caste prohibitions worked in India; until today, Indian population can be divided into many genetically distinct subpopulations determined by caste.

Same with medieval Europe and, say, sex and marriage between Christians and Jews. Close to unthinkable, regardless of whether you fancied beautiful Sara.

Non-free societies have a lot of clout when enforcing taboos against personal taste.