very basic genetics question
Sat, 2007-05-19 15:58
#1
very basic genetics question
Sat, 2007-05-19 15:58
#2
Did anyone take genetics? I did, but it was oh, so many years ago. Anyway ... I am now taking a criminology course and we're covering
[b]the disproved theory of a [/b]
genetic basis for criminality. My question is as follows:
Dealing with one hypothetical gene only, a child can inherit M1 or M2 plus F1 or F2 (M and F are mother and father, obviously). So the child's possibilities (for that one particular gene) are M1F1, M1F2, M2F1 and M2F2. So far, so good.
Now a sibling comes along and they also have those four possibilities, right? When comparing the kids, since they both have four possibilities, I would have thought that the two kids could be 100%, 50%, 50% again or 0% related (on that one gene). Obviously, I'm meaning without the benefit of genetic testing to look and see.
My textbook says that siblings are 50% related to each other. Does this mean on average? Because, gene by gene, they might be 100, 50, 50 or zero-related, according to my very shaky knowledge of statistical theory.
Also, it would seem to me that the only "pure" genetic experiment would be to compare identical twins raised apart. I can't imagine that this happens very often. What they use for the genetics vs. environment debate is identical twins vs. fraternal twins but I don't think this is a great comparison. In my experience (knowing two sets of identical twins), these types of twins treat themselves and are treated by others quite remarkably differently.
The preceding paragraph is just a side query of mine, however. I would really appreciate some input on the 50% issue. I hope this doesn't count as cheating.
[ 20 May 2007: Message edited by: Phrillie ]
Sat, 2007-05-19 16:03
#3
I would have been happy to help you with this concept if you weren't studying a "genetic basis for criminality".
Under the circumstances, I won't.
ETA much later: When I originally posted this retort, Phrillie hadn't yet inserted the words [b]"disproved theory"[/b]. Had she done so, I likely would never have posted to this thread, except perhaps when 500_Apples started up about European Jews being hereditarily smarter than the norm!
[ 20 May 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Sat, 2007-05-19 16:06
#4
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I would have been happy to help you with this concept if you weren't studying a "genetic basis for criminality".Under the circumstances, I won't.[/b]
We're looking at the theory not promoting it. It's a general criminology course. Our textbook is progressive -- on squeegiers, the authors state that effectively it's now illegal to be homeless. It's not at all how I made it sound in my opening post. Honest.
Sat, 2007-05-19 16:26
#5
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]We're looking at the theory not promoting it. It's a general criminology course. Our textbook is progressive -- on squeegiers, the authors state that effectively it's now illegal to be homeless. It's not at all how I made it sound in my opening post. Honest.[/b]
Phrillie, it's on average.
You don't really inherit genes from your parents, you inherit chromosomes. For every chromosome, you have a pair, one from mom and one from dad. There's chromosomes 1 through 22 (1 being the biggest, 22 being the smallest), and then women have XX and men have XY. So for every pair of chromosome, there's four choices for the pair. A quarter of the time you share both, half the time you share half the pair, and a quarter of the time you share neither of the pair.
So on average, you'll share half your genetic material with your sibling.
Note: what I wrote above is only true for the totally blind information of chromosomes 1 through 22. If they're brothers for example, you know for sure they have the same Y chromosome, though you didn't know which of two X chromosomes they inherited from their mother. If they're sisters, you know for sure they got at least one X-chromosome in common (the one from dad). And for brother and sister, they share 1/2 sex chromosomes half the time, and 0/2 the other half.
And sorry to be a bore, the other factor is assuming no mutations. On average, I remember learning between 5 and 10 mutations a generation.
Sat, 2007-05-19 16:32
#6
Bless you, 500_Apples. And your thank you prize is ... another question!!!
Without genetic testing and ignoring mutations, as you point out, then is it accurate to deem siblings 50% related for the purposes of comparing criminality, mental disorder, etc.? It seems to me that if you don't know WHAT you're counting, then there isn't much point in tallying your results.
ETA: Fraternal twins are the same as sibs, right?
[ 19 May 2007: Message edited by: Phrillie ]
Sat, 2007-05-19 16:44
#7
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]Bless you, 500_Apples. And your thank you prize is ... another question!!!Without genetic testing and ignoring mutations, as you point out, then is it accurate to deem siblings 50% related for the purposes of comparing criminality, mental disorder, etc.? It seems to me that if you don't know WHAT you're counting, then there isn't much point in tallying your results.[/b]
Your first question at the start of the thread was a math problem.
This second question strikes me as a sociology/neuroscience/biology/psychology question. I'm not so good with those.
I don't really understand it, it would depend on the context. Reducing it to a math problem, I think it would be fair to count siblings as 50% related if you took samples of hundreds of pairs of sibilings. Actually, the arbitrary threshhold for this kind of thing is 30. So you'd need at least 30 pairs.
The analysis changes depending on whether or not you're looking for correlation with a single gene or with total genetic material. The single analysis is what you would do, I guess, if you knew what you were doing and had some prior knowledge. The total genetic material would be a prelimenary study.
Which is it?
Sat, 2007-05-19 17:43
#8
I'm behind on my reading so I'm not sure which yet. I'm guessing it's total genetic material they're talking about but I won't know for a couple of weeks. Thanks for your help, though.
ETA: I thought the only genetic situation that had been linked to criminality (and it's a tenuous link) is XYY males. Like I said, I haven't studied this for years and years (early 1980s, actually, yikes!)
[ 19 May 2007: Message edited by: Phrillie ]
Sat, 2007-05-19 18:47
#9
And I randomly saw this scientific article on genetics and crime.
[url=http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/1301359a.pdf]http://...
quote:
Aggressive behavior is influenced by variation in genes of the serotonergic circuitry and early-life experience alike. The present study
aimed at investigating the contribution of polymorphisms shown to moderate transcription of two genes involved in serotonergic
neurotransmission (serotonin transporter, 5HTT, and monoamine oxidase A, MAOA) to the development of violence and to test for
gene–environment interactions relating to adverse childhood environment.
As I specialize, it kind of breaks my heart that there's this rich intellectual world I'll never get to really learn.
Sat, 2007-05-19 18:57
#10
I haven't checked out the article but I am very curious, in general terms, about the ethical implications of this kind of research. It kind of ties into the biological psychiatry debate. If a particular genetic make-up predisposed somebody to aggression, then what (if anything) should society do with that information?
Sat, 2007-05-19 19:26
#11
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]I haven't checked out the article but I am very curious, in general terms, about the ethical implications of this kind of research. It kind of ties into the biological psychiatry debate. If a particular genetic make-up predisposed somebody to aggression, then what (if anything) should society do with that information?[/b]
There's this interesting graph in Steven Pinker's [i]The Blank Slate[/i]. It results from anthropological studies, the proportion of deaths due to homicide at various points in history. In the 20th century, even if include the world wars, it was the smallest proportion ever, it seems. In Cro-Magnon times, I think it was 40%. So no matter how you slice, it's [i]clear[/i] that nurture plays a very big role.
I used to hold a very naive nature over nurture perspective. A friend of mine who did psychology tried to explain it to me and I think I got it later on. It's about gene-environment interactions. In one psychologist's example, if you're calculating the area of a rectangle, you don't ask which is more important out of the length or the height. And that's true of any shape.
So in general, I don't think the ethical considerations you allude to will ever come up. I suspect all behavioral manifestations are at the very least correlated with many genes, and then with environment as well. And I also suspect that we all have the potential for violence within us. So any sort of eugenics is a non-starter.
What would happen if we reached the point where science could definitively point to a person, decode his DNA, and say "100% probability of paedophilia and violent aggression." I guess we'd incarcerate him. But it just doesn't seem to me to work that way, and therefore we don't need to deal with that ugly issue. I know it sounds like wishful thinking.
***
In general though, I'm for full investigative science unhindered by political taboos. For example, [url=http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf]This Paper[/url] on the possibly genetic causes of Ashkenazi Jewish performance in the arts and sciences, or this one: (http://tinyurl.com/2nrpc3) on gender differences in behavior in neonates. I have "faith" that the truth need not lead to politically incorrect disaster if we handle it in a mature fashion, and that we have a lot to learn.
[ 19 May 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
[ 19 May 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Sat, 2007-05-19 19:43
#12
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]What would happen if we reached the point where science could definitively point to a person, decode his DNA, and say "100% probability of paedophilia and violent aggression." I guess we'd incarcerate him. But it just doesn't seem to me to work that way, and therefore we don't need to deal with that ugly issue. I know it sounds like wishful thinking.[/b]
I sure hope you're right. What if there were a combination of genes that were said to make a person 80% likely to be a violent offender? Then what? What about the poor saps in the 20% category that would never have been violent?
The more I'm reading about the psychiatry debate, the more it seems that the mainstream is pushing very hard to have the non-violent mentally ill treated before they become violent.
Sat, 2007-05-19 19:54
#13
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]
In general though, I'm for full investigative science unhindered by political taboos. For example, [url=http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf]This Paper[/url] on the possibly genetic causes of Ashkenazi Jewish performance in the arts and sciences,[/b]
Gee, it didn't take long, did it?
European Jews are bred for high IQ.
Any other papers "unhindered by political taboos", 500_Apples? Violent crimes and African Americans? Intoxication and Aboriginals? Afghans and genetic inability to govern themselves?
C'mon, don't hold back. It's all in the name of science.
[NOTE: The above is ironic and aimed at expressing my disgust at this entire thread which discusses genetic disposition to "anti-social" activity.]
Sat, 2007-05-19 19:59
#14
quote:
I sure hope you're right. What if there were a combination of genes that were said to make a person 80% likely to be a violent offender? Then what? What about the poor saps in the 20% category that would never have been violent?
It took me a long time to come to the conclusion that that kind of statement does not make any sense. Or at least none that I can grasp.How would these numbers be measured? Would they really be the same across every culture and income group? And if not, how much do inividual parents micromanage?
I think the insurance companies will be the first to use that kind of information. Though my personal prefference would be we not do anything. I remember this came up in a CEGEP philosophy class, the teacher brought up the hypothetical case of if we could predict rape. One female student got giddy and said we should castrate them early on. I was horrified.
I really think we all have poential danger within us. So let's not get carried away. We can do a lot simply by better respecting each and overcoming a lot of social issues. Idealistic? Probably.
[ 19 May 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
[ 19 May 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Sat, 2007-05-19 20:07
#15
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Gee, it didn't take long, did it?
European Jews are bred for high IQ.
Any other papers "unhindered by political taboos", 500_Apples? Violent crimes and African Americans? Intoxication and Aboriginals? Afghans and genetic inability to govern themselves?
C'mon, don't hold back. It's all in the name of science.
[NOTE: The above is ironic and aimed at expressing my disgust at this entire thread which discusses genetic disposition to "anti-social" activity.][/b]
?????
I think I've made my opinions on the impact of social factors clear on this thread.
And who said anything about breeding? Ethnic groups are not, to the best of my knowledge, "bred".
Sat, 2007-05-19 20:12
#16
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]
And who said anything about breeding? Ethnic groups are not, to the best of my knowledge, "bred".[/b]
Didn't you read your own pseudo-scientific reference?
quote:
Our general hypothesis is that high IQ test scores of Ashkenazim, along with their unusual pattern of abilities, are a product of [b]natural selection[/b], stemming from their occupation of an unusual social niche. All the required preconditions – low inward gene flow and [b]unusually high reproductive reward for certain cognitive skills[/b], over a long enough period – did exist. These preconditions are both necessary and sufficient, so [b]such a selective process[/b] would almost inevitably have this kind of result.
[emphasis added]
Sat, 2007-05-19 20:27
#17
I don't equate natural selection with "breeding". Please don't use that word again, I find it offensive.
I had never finished reading it actually. I can tell a lot of it is rigorous and recognize some of the methodology, but there's too much that's over my head. Are you saying all population studies are pseudoscientific or just this one?
[ 19 May 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Sun, 2007-05-20 14:14
#18
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]It took me a long time to come to the conclusion that that kind of statement does not make any sense. Or at least none that I can grasp.How would these numbers be measured? [/b]
I'm jumping ahead to some time in the future -- I have no idea how this hypothetical 80% figure would come about. I'm just wondering if it DID come about, what would be the ethical considerations. My textbook mentions a 1980s study that purported to link body type to criminality. That study was attacked because it failed to take into account many common sense factors (e.g. people in prison spend a lot of time body-building).
As to the other point that's come up in this thread, I believe any line of scientific enquiry is worthwhile as long as it is done ethically and responsibly. If there appears to be a certain "anti-social" behaviour that correlates to an ethnic group, ethical and responsible scientific enquiry can:
(a) disprove a pervasive mythology; or
(b) provide additional information that explains the observable data.
I agree that politics doesn't belong in science.
Sun, 2007-05-20 14:28
#19
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]My textbook mentions a 1980s study that purported to link body type to criminality. [/b]
Mind telling us the name and author of your textbook? It wasn't Lombroso, was it?
Sun, 2007-05-20 14:30
#20
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Mind telling us the name and author of your textbook? It wasn't Lombroso, was it?[/b]
"The Criminal Event" by Sacco and Kennedy. Seems to be a pretty good read, so far.
Sun, 2007-05-20 14:40
#21
remind
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Any other papers "unhindered by political taboos", 500_Apples? Violent crimes and African Americans? Intoxication and Aboriginals? Afghans and genetic inability to govern themselves?C'mon, don't hold back. It's all in the name of science.
[NOTE: The above is ironic and aimed at expressing my disgust at this entire thread which discusses genetic disposition to "anti-social" activity.][/b]
I know, I have had a hard time with it considering phrillie's dialogue in another thread regarding mental disabilities was over the top about labelling.
Sun, 2007-05-20 14:46
#22
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]I know, I have had a hard time with it considering phrillie's dialogue in another thread regarding mental disabilities was over the top about labelling.[/b]
Quite different situations. A crime is an act set out in the Criminal Code. A mental illness is a value judgement made by a psychiatrist.
ETA: I'm stumped, remind. In that other thread, I chastised someone for tagging the mentally ill with demeaning labels. What does that have to do with thinking science should be kept apart from (above) politics?
[ 20 May 2007: Message edited by: Phrillie ]
Sun, 2007-05-20 16:07
#23
remind
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Mind telling us the name and author of your textbook? It wasn't Lombroso, was it?[/b]
Well, that received no answer so......
Sun, 2007-05-20 16:32
#24
Except for the post IMMEDIATELY after his:
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]"The Criminal Event" by Sacco and Kennedy. Seems to be a pretty good read, so far.[/b]
Sun, 2007-05-20 17:00
#25
[b]Unionist wrote:[/b]
quote:
Mind telling us the name and author of your textbook? It wasn't Lombroso, was it?
Wow, tou're really removed from academia, or maybe you're being sarcastic. I hope it's the latter.
Here are a few things which are debated in the public media but settled among educated types.
1) Darwinian evolution, not intelligent design.
2) Global warming as an anthropgenically-induced phenomenon is most likely real.
3) Intelligence and behavior is hereditary to a significant extent.
4) Ethnicity is a significant biostatistical indicator.
5) CFCs are bad for the Ozone layer.
6) Some behavioral differences between males and females are innate, on a statistical basis.
7) Trans-fats are bad for your health.
8) Cigarettes are bad for you.
Anyone of those things pisses off somebody's politics. Which is why they're all debated or have been debated rather extensively in the popular press.
I just read up a bit on this Lombroso fellow. It's obviously not the individual who would have authored Phrillie's (manifestly contemporary) textbook. He makes a lot of value judgments which don't make any sense (i.e. evolution is a vertical process). Additionally, I'll remind you that phrenology has fallen out of favour.
Sun, 2007-05-20 19:27
#26
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Sorry, "Lombroso" was just a sarcastic jibe.
But his reincarnations appear to abound.
Sun, 2007-05-20 19:30
#27
Post deleted. I don't want to talk to Unionist anymore, anyway.
[ 20 May 2007: Message edited by: Phrillie ]
Sun, 2007-05-20 19:45
#28
Phrillie, why are you studying criminology and specifically whether criminal behaviour has a genetic component? I find the latter to be extremely offensive. In my day as an activist, we would chase people out of town who made those claims under the cover of science.
If you don't want to talk to me any more, don't. But don't think you can set up private threads where you and 500_Apples can happily chat about race- or gene-based behaviour without being called to account. That can be done through email or PMs.
Sun, 2007-05-20 20:04
#29
Phrillie, you don't have to talk to unionist if you don't want, but you're wandering into some pretty problematic territory and unionist and others are going to respond.
quote:
In general though, I'm for full investigative science unhindered by political taboos.
How about hindered by morals and ethics? I skimmed the first bit of your link to the study of the Ashkenazim, and as someone with an admittedly small background in research methodology I thought it was seriously flawed.
500 Apples, I was under the impression from previous posts that your area was math and physics at a fairly esoteric level. Maybe you'd better stick with that.
Sun, 2007-05-20 20:08
#30
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Phrillie, why are you studying criminology [/b]
Because I'm very interested in the idea of society's norms and how they came into being.
quote:
[b]and specifically whether criminal behaviour has a genetic component?[/b]
As I already stated in my 2nd post above, I'm not "specifically" studying that, and I regret (again) that my first post was poorly worded. I'm taking an introductory, general course that looks at all aspects of the subject. The text said that concordance on the twin studies was weak, i.e. there's not compelling evidence of a genetic component.
In any event, if there [i]were[/i] a genetic component, I wouldn't hesitate to look at those studies. I don't believe in censorship. Like I said before, if research is ethical and responsible, then science is advanced.
quote:
[b]I find the latter to be extremely offensive.[/b]
Unionist, I think you've been looking for something to get cranky about. If it's not my Hitlerian studies, then it's my billionaire brother's tax scam.
quote:
[b] In my day as an activist, we would chase people out of town who made those claims under the cover of science.[/b]
Then you'd be a vigilante, not an activist. The answer to bad science is good science. And, furthermore, what if those claims were in fact true? Then should we still censor that science?
quote:
[b]If you don't want to talk to me any more, don't. But don't think you can set up private threads where you and 500_Apples can happily chat about race- or gene-based behaviour without being called to account. That can be done through email or PMs.[/b]
It's not a "private thread," Unionist; it's a derailed thread. I asked a simple mathematical question about probability theory. You saw something that (a) I misdescribed and (b) you misunderstood. Let's just call it a day, shall we?
Sun, 2007-05-20 20:12
#31
quote:
Originally posted by oldgoat:
[b]How about hindered by morals and ethics?[/b]
Censorship, you mean. I called for ethical and responsible research. What part of that doesn't accord with morals and ethics?
quote:
[b] I skimmed the first bit of your link to the study of the Ashkenazim, and as someone with an admittedly small background in research methodology I thought it was seriously flawed.[/b]
I didn't post it, nor did I read the link.
Sun, 2007-05-20 20:15
#32
re: the second quote, I was talking to 500 Apples. I admit I didn't make that particularly clear.
Sun, 2007-05-20 20:17
#33
quote:
Originally posted by oldgoat:
[b]re: the second quote, I was talking to 500 Apples. I admit I didn't make that particularly clear.[/b]
Yes, that thought occurred to me a moment after I posted.
Sun, 2007-05-20 20:22
#34
The crime rate is higher among blacks than it is among whites. Shall we:
(a) Study the reasons why this may be so -- racial profiling, sentencing factors, socioeconomic barriers, etc., etc. or
(b) Make it illegal to say out loud that the first sentence above is true.
Myself, I will always prefer (a).
Sun, 2007-05-20 20:28
#35
Because of the #@&^%%***#@ crap keyboard I'm using, i'm not making long posts. I also choose not to use my parental clout to kick my kid off the good computer just now. I'll just say I think youve raised a false dichotomy.
Sun, 2007-05-20 20:36
#36
quote:
Originally posted by oldgoat:
[b]Because of the #@&^%%***#@ crap keyboard I'm using, i'm not making long posts. I also choose not to use my parental clout to kick my kid off the good computer just now. I'll just say I think youve raised a false dichotomy.[/b]
Why? Unionist said someone believing this type of science should be run out of town. You appeared to agree. Where's the false dichotomy? It's an uncomfortable fact about the crime rate. Does that make it immoral to study it? Freedom of speech is a pretty fundamental right. I wouldn't be tossing it around quite so lightly.
Sun, 2007-05-20 21:23
#37
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]It's an uncomfortable fact about the crime rate. Does that make it immoral to study it? [/b]
I've noticed that often, when your posts are criticized, you take refuge in the claim that you have been "misinterpreted". Examples available upon request. Here, you claim that the purpose of opening this thread was "mathematics", and that you clarified your intent in your very second post.
But really, you just kept ploughing right ahead:
quote:
Posted by Phrillie: [b]Without genetic testing and ignoring mutations, as you point out, then is it accurate to deem siblings 50% related for the purposes of comparing criminality, mental disorder, etc.?
quote:
Posted by Phrillie: [b]I thought the only genetic situation that had been linked to criminality (and it's a tenuous link) is XYY males.[/b]
That one is on a par with European Jews born smart and other pseudo-science:
quote:
A popular misconception in the 1960s & 70s that XYY males were more prone to criminal behaviour lead to several novels and TV series which exploited the idea with little regard to the science. Robin Chapman's 1971 episode of the BBC television science fiction series Doomwatch (entitled 'By The Pricking Of My Thumbs ...') portrayed the tragic results of this misconception being taken as fact by authority figures. Less sympathetically, Kenneth Royce's series of novels about The XYY Man played up entirely to the stereotype, with an anti-hero figure William 'Spider' Scott, whose extra Y chromosome is seen to be partly responsible for his career as a cat-burglar. Royce's books were turned into a very popular TV series in the UK between 1976-7, further entrenching the popular stereotype.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome#Popular_culture]Source.[/url]
quote:
Posted by Phrillie: [b]If a particular genetic make-up predisposed somebody to aggression, then what (if anything) should society do with that information?[/b]
You consider that an innocent question? How is it different from: "If science proved that children of certain races were more prone to shoplifting, what (if any) security measures should shopping malls take?"
quote:
Posted by Phrillie: [b]What if there were a combination of genes that were said to make a person 80% likely to be a violent offender? [/b]
You don't expect to be challenged on a progressive board for asking "innocent" questions like this?!
quote:
Posted by Phrillie: [b]If there appears to be a certain "anti-social" behaviour that correlates to an ethnic group, ethical and responsible scientific enquiry can:(a) disprove a pervasive mythology; or
(b) provide additional information that explains the observable data.[/b]
Yeah, all this eugenic crap in one thread - and almost all of it in a "what-if" format. And you purport to be defending freedom of speech and free scientific inquiry?
quote:
Posted by Phrillie: [b]The crime rate is higher among blacks than it is among whites.[/b]
Which colour did you say you were? Wait, let me guess.
Sun, 2007-05-20 21:37
#38
remind
Nope, nope, nope there is no push to right of babble, at one time this type of cloked, and not so cloked, bigotry, dressed up as scholarly inquiry would have been shut down, now it is allowed to continue.
------------------------------------
Unionist, though I am sure there must be POC on Salt Spring I have never met, or saw, one.
Mon, 2007-05-21 07:25
#39
[b]Bye-bye, babble. Yes, I believe in freedom of scientific enquiry. Yes, I believe my textbook when it says that the prison population has a higher percentage of XYY males. Yes, I
want science free of censorship. Yes, I believe in ethical and responsible research. Yes, I ask hypothetical questions about ethical issues that are sure to come up. I am white, female and a member of a very marginalized group. No, I don't really live on Salt Spring Island. And, you know what, my real name isn't Phrillie, either. I am not a racist. I am not a bigot. Unionist and remind, you think you're progressive. What you are is shrill and hypocritical and hysterical. You're the left-wing equivalent of Nancy Grace. I've got better things to do with my time. Bye-bye, babble.[/b]
Mon, 2007-05-21 08:10
#40
Phrillie doesn't feel comfortable having her views challenged. One wonders what a discussion board is for. But then, let me think back on some of the views she has expressed in the less than 2 months she has posted here:
- Don't support sex education in Grades 1, 2, 3.
- [b]ETA[/b] On the right to choose: "Is it okay to kill a baby that's 3 hours old? What if the umbilical is still attached -- does that make it okay? If not, why not?" Always "questions". Also: "I know I don't belong in the feminist forum because I believe a fetus has some rights too, although less than a pregnant woman's. Even so, does anybody at all see abortion as a form of violence?"
- Quotes a neo-fascist blog and asks (always a question!) whether babble is state-funded?
- Speaking of which, she opens a thread cautioning babblers about not paying too much tax in the event of death.
- Self-described "upper-class family" which has married into "a variety" of social classes.
- Moved out of the city to get away from crime and low quality schools and dedicate herself to raising kids.
- Is studying criminology and continues to believe that there is a genetic link to violent behaviour.
- News story that mentions that a school with problems of violence is near an Aboriginal reserve "doesn't set off alarm bells" for her.
- She is a self-described "entrepeneur" who believes that ownership and control of business creates value in itself, by contrast with "lower-level workers" who are "easily replaced".
- She defends her class - saying that we have all known "ethical businesspeople" and "slacker workers". Perhaps so - but what is the point here?
I personally thought all of Phrillie's views were worth discussing and debating. She, however, is a sensitive soul who just likes to put "questions" out there. She copes well with agreement, but not with criticism and challenge.
I do hope she stays. But if (as mentioned before) she accepts only agreement, there must be other boards out there which mirror the kind of world outlook expressed in the points listed above.
[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Mon, 2007-05-21 08:15
#41
White coated nazi scientists used to ponder questions similar to studies of this nature, using calipers, hair colour swatches, and facial measurements, in a search for proof of the racial inferiority of non-aryan europeans. Continuing the same type of research using chromosomes and DNA is repulsive at the very least. It should be criminally investigated and outlawed. Its perverse in the extreme. To lend a veneer of respectability to this nonsence by posing 'innocent' type questions on the subject is obscene. Well done to the folks here who jumped all over this crap.
Mon, 2007-05-21 08:33
#42
Determining future behaviour through genetic studies is the ultimate fascist fantasy.
Why? Because it removes all social factors from the analysis, and pretends that biology is destiny.
So, no one anywhere is REALLY justified in objecting to conditions in the world. They are just acting out their biology.
And others, who just happen to be on top (let us call them uebermenschen) are destined to act out THEIR biology.
And, of course, there could be no objection to these latter folk exterminating the ones underneath.
You think not? You think there might be some valid objection? Well, that's YOUR biology talking. Get in line.
Mon, 2007-05-21 08:37
#43
Fair enough, unionist.
As for the subject of this thread, if this is the sort of stuff that is being taught in criminology courses, then I think it's worth discussion (and debunking where necessary) on babble. Phrillie, you are going to have to get used to having your views challenged here. That's what a discussion forum is for.
And the rest of us should remember that challenging views does not have to include personal attacks.
Mon, 2007-05-21 08:48
#44
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Nope, nope, nope there is no push to right of babble, at one time this type of cloked, and not so cloked, bigotry, dressed up as scholarly inquiry would have been shut down, now it is allowed to continue.[/b]
Come on, you're accusing them now of tolerating pseudo-scientific racial profiling. Thats a quantum stretch and a completely unjustified inflamatory statement. I agree completely with what you and unionist have said here but this is over the top. Cut them some slack, it may take them more than one read of the initial post to see it for what it is and respond acccordingly. Don't get so quickly bent out of shape. If you want to be an extremist do so for the correct reasons.
Mon, 2007-05-21 08:55
#45
Yeah, remind: Why are we blaming "babble" for tolerating anything? We are all part of babble. If we put our viewpoints forward, that's good enough. If someone is being a provocateur, or posting racist, fascist, homophobic or sexist material, I'm sure we'll be able to deal with it.
I'd just like to see more debate, more debaters, more expression of opinion. Maybe it's time to start merging some of the boards that split apart last year... Anyone game to discuss that in a new thread - which we can replicate on the other boards?
Mon, 2007-05-21 09:35
#46
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b][b] Yes, I believe my textbook when it says that the prison population has a higher percentage of XYY males. b][/b]
Yes I have heard that before too however the 'study' seems off as how much of the general population is measured for the XYY chromosones?
Where is a proper comparison?
Mon, 2007-05-21 09:54
#47
quote:
Originally posted by oldgoat:
[b]Phrillie, you don't have to talk to unionist if you don't want, but you're wandering into some pretty problematic territory and unionist and others are going to respond.How about hindered by morals and ethics? I skimmed the first bit of your link to the study of the Ashkenazim, and as someone with an admittedly small background in research methodology I thought it was seriously flawed.
500 Apples, I was under the impression from previous posts that your area was math and physics at a fairly esoteric level. Maybe you'd better stick with that.[/b]
As far as my professional career is concerned I'll stick to esoteric physics.
When it comes to personal interests, I'll read up on other things as well. I'm bothered when people say the theory of evolution is just a theory, or when people say there's no genetic component to behavior. I feel this kind of blissful ignorance should be challenged, as it can inevitably lead to very dangerous conclusions. Examples include wasting time teaching creationism in schools, or not slapping serial paedophiles with dangerous offender status.
The study on the Ashkenazim (and I'm not one of that ethnic group btw) is hardly non-scientific. Read up on most of the reactions to it, it generated a lot of Buzz on the internet. To point out that 30% of nobel prize winners in the past fifty years are Jewish is not racist, it's an observation. Some white supremacists might argue that it's because Jews control that nobel prize. Others might wonder if something else is going on. It's a valid scientific question to ask "why?" And if one is asking why, one should look at genetic factors as well as social factors rather than only social factors. My first guess would be that intellectual variance might correlate with certain diseases.
Einstein
Freud
Spinoza
Montaigne
marx
rand
friedman
greenspan
von Mises
von Neumann
david ricardo
Pauli
Wittgenstein
Cohen-Tannoudji
Mandelbrot
Derrida
Bethe
Born
Cantor
Fromm
Herz
Schwarzschild
Erdos
Lukбcs
Tarski
Landau
Bohr
Pinker
Singer
Chomsky
Feynman
Gell-Mann
Oppenheimer
Witten
I think that asking how such a spectacular ethnic correlation took place is a valid question of inquiry. Nearly all the top physicists of the 20th century (Einstein, Feynman, Witten, Gell-Mann, Bohr) is certainly a spectacular.... coincidence.
[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Mon, 2007-05-21 09:55
#48
quote:
Originally posted by clersal:
[b]Yes I have heard that before too however the 'study' seems off as how much of the general population is measured for the XYY chromosones?
[/b]
Clersal, these are old theories that are now [url=http://www.bookrags.com/research/xyy-syndrome-wog/]debunked[/url]:
quote:
The XYY syndrome was previously considered the "supermale" syndrome where men with this condition were thought to be overly aggressive and more likely to become a criminal. These original stereotypes came about because several researchers in the 1960s found a high number of men with XYY syndrome in prisons and mental institutes. Based on these observations, men with XYY syndrome were labeled as overly aggressive and likely to be criminals.These original observations did not consider that the majority of males with XYY syndrome were not in prisons or mental institutes. Since then, broader, less biased studies have been done on males with XYY syndrome. Though males with XYY syndrome may be taller than average and have an increased risk for learning difficulties, especially in reading and speech, they are not overly aggressive. Unfortunately, some text books and many people still believe the inaccurate stereotype of the supermale syndrome.
Mon, 2007-05-21 09:58
#49
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]Determining future behaviour through genetic studies is the ultimate fascist fantasy.Why? Because it removes all social factors from the analysis, and pretends that biology is destiny.
So, no one anywhere is REALLY justified in objecting to conditions in the world. They are just acting out their biology.
And others, who just happen to be on top (let us call them uebermenschen) are destined to act out THEIR biology.
And, of course, there could be no objection to these latter folk exterminating the ones underneath.
You think not? You think there might be some valid objection? Well, that's YOUR biology talking. Get in line.[/b]
It's not social factors or genetic factors. It's the two of them together and how they interact. Read up on gene gene-environment interaction.
To say that behavior is either social or biological in nature is possibly the dumbest dichotomy I've ever heard. It would likely be debunked in chapter 1 of Phrillie's textbook - or any introductory textbook in the subject at any university in North America.
Mon, 2007-05-21 10:44
#50
On the other hand, I just read the page Unionist posted on XYY chromosome and it kind of sounds like me. As long as I'm not infertile or effectively infertile...
Probably not it though.
Mon, 2007-05-21 11:11
#51
I knew they were debunked. I guess Phrillie didn't!