Hacker News Reader

Comment by Sholmesy | Hacker News Reader

I agree with you, but an IQ of 70 is mentally disabled, so it's not really a good example of "bad" genetics, so much as it is an example of a disability.

View on HN

That seems like a strange line to draw, surely plenty of disabilities are genetic, implying bad genetics no?

Sure, but it's unlikely that you would have an IQ that low, and not have a specific medical disorder that is causing some of your impairment. E.g, Down Syndrome is a chromosomal change, something that can be measured outside of a 'bad genetics'.

What? You somehow think that if there is a named thing then it's not genetics. It's genetics both if it's a named thing, and if it's yet unnamed thing too.

My point is that the distinction is important.

Of course, named disorder or not, genetics can be the cause/have a high impact.

There is a thin line between disability and just different genetics.

E.g. is it bad for a primate to have bad bite strength? What if that disability enhances their thinking ability (by both allowing their brain to expand more since the muscles holding the jaw are weaker and by forcing them to use something other than their bite strength)?

Isn't that a rather arbitrary distinction? Feels you are making it easy for yourself to just dismiss a certain amount of "not-normal" people as not relevant to the discussion? So, what do you define as "bad genetics", then?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com