>"people less genetically able to do certain jobs tend to become minorities"
This is a sidenote to my longer comment - I've never seen evidence, ever, of a genetic component to the ability to do a certain job, that surpasses a statistical margin of error.
That’s not true. Arguably all professional athletics require a very large genetic component. Good luck in the NBA if you’re 5’1” tall.
I think the ability to accurately identify tones is also largely genetic, so professional musicians are probably on the list as well.
My guess is that software development also has genetic mental requirements but there’s no definitive answer for that.
Probably a lot of jobs have genetic components whether that’s cognitive speed, athletic ability, ability to focus, fine motor control, a particular enhanced sense...
Sure, you're not wrong, but you've just stated an individual trait, not a population one. Try now to make the argument that someone is more "likely" to be pro NBA if they're of some arbitrarily chosen genetic background. You will run into the fact that 1. You will be totally unable to create rigid constraints for your genetic background, and 2. Statistical variance will be so high that you won't actually be generating useful information anyway (i.e. an effective predictor).
So yea, maybe one couple of tall people could have a tall kid and of course the kid has a better chance at the NBA than a short kid (sort of maybe. He could end up a footsie god, it's happened before and we have no way of predicting when it will happen next), but they might have had a short kid despite their genetic factors so the point is moot.
>My guess is that software development also has genetic mental requirements but there’s no definitive answer for that
You may guess all you want but I carefully avoid any feelings that are not fact based and don't generate any useful planning or information for me so I disagree with this point. There's simply no evidence of this and I don't see how this information could be significant enough to have an effect on any decisions I make in life (for example, hiring decisions).
> No, I’ve stated a population trait. The population of professional athletes
Ok... but we've now left the field of genetics. Professional athletes are determined by whether they get hired to play sports professionally, not by genetic birthright.
> Not all tall people can be NBA stars but all NBA stars are tall.
Again, unsure the relation to genetics here, but this also isn't true. Muggsy was a god and is 5'3". Curry is 6'3" which is definitely tall, but among NBA players, not that tall... but his skill level is far, far, far higher than his height would indicate. The statistical variation between height and skill, even in the highly-artificially-selected-for population of NBA players, doesn't correlate perfectly enough to derive a good predictor. You just can't say "the taller the player, the better the player." Not even on average! So, it's not useful information.
AND! This doesn't even get into the sociological aspect of NBA - how many young Muggsys are out there not getting put in (or accepted) to basketball camps/programs because they're "too short?" How many 7 year old future Currys are too hungry to train?
> You’ve been advocating strongly for your position so I’m not sure it makes sense to just discount the opposition as useless.
I certainly don't intend to imply your position is useless, I'm trying to demonstrate that correlative "evidence" (i.e. that a certain population is better at xyz) is unable to overcome sociological noise, and therefore the information is useless.
> Again, unsure the relation to genetics here, but this also isn't true. Muggsy was a god and is 5'3". Curry is 6'3" which is definitely tall, but among NBA players, not that tall... but his skill level is far, far, far higher than his height would indicate. The statistical variation between height and skill, even in the highly-artificially-selected-for population of NBA players, doesn't correlate perfectly enough to derive a good predictor. You just can't say "the taller the player, the better the player." Not even on average! So, it's not useful information.
This is actually a common fallacy - height is a fantastic predictor of NBA skill, that's why something like 15% of everyone in the US over 7' tall will play in the NBA at some point in their life. But once you've limited the question to the set of people who play in the NBA, it won't be nearly as good of a predictor of skill - because you're measuring after a selection effect.
I admit I’m using height as a shorthand here. I’ll put it more simply: Do you think anyone can become a professional athlete with the right training?
I don’t. I think it’s a field where genetics determine who can succeed and who can’t. That isn’t to say that everyone who can become a professional athlete becomes one though.
> Sure, you're not wrong, but you've just stated an individual trait, not a population one.
No, I’ve stated a population trait. The population of professional athletes. Not all tall people can be NBA stars but all NBA stars are tall. Being genetically athletic is a prerequisite to professional sports not a guarantee that one can become a professional athlete. Being genetically unathletic does disqualify you from the profession though.
> I don't see how this information could be significant enough to have an effect on any decisions I make in life (for example, hiring decisions).
You’ve been advocating strongly for your position so I’m not sure it makes sense to just discount the opposition as useless. At the very least this seems like a great field for further study.
This is a sidenote to my longer comment - I've never seen evidence, ever, of a genetic component to the ability to do a certain job, that surpasses a statistical margin of error.