very basic genetics question

136 posts / 0 new

Last post

Mon, 2007-05-21 14:21

#52

Phrillie

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Phrillie doesn't feel comfortable having her views challenged.[/b]

That's right -- that's a failing of mine. Disagreement feels like attack. You're not the first to point this out to me.

I wanted to talk back to the points that you raised:

[b][/quote]- Don't support sex education in Grades 1, 2, 3.[/quote][/b]

Yes, I feel ages 6, 7 and 8 are too young for sex education.

[b]

quote:

- [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?"[/b]

Yes, I have serious trouble with "late-term" abortions. I have trouble with abortion in general and it's all because of an exquisitely worded letter to the editor to Harper's (or possibly the Atlantic) that I read recently.

quote:

[b]Always "questions".[/b]

Yeah, you're right there. It's wimpy of me. Truth be told, it's because I'm afraid of you guys.

quote:

[b]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?"[/b]

Yes, and nobody answered me (that I know of). I am a feminist, in that I see gender power imbalance integral to all of our lives. I don't happen to think abortion is a good thing for women. With that in mind, I should stay out of the feminist forum. I guess, right?

quote:

[b]- Quotes a neo-fascist blog and asks (always a question!) whether babble is state-funded?

[/b]

Now that's unfair. As I already stated, I'm a Luddite. When I lot on to babble, I google rabble.ca space babble. One time that I did so, the blazing cat fur website was visible at #4 or #5. I asked about it on babble. Is it true, I said. Babble set me straight.

quote:

[b]- Speaking of which, she opens a thread cautioning babblers about not paying too much tax in the event of death.[/b]

Yes, I did. No defence to that, I guess.

quote:

[b]- Self-described "upper-class family" which has married into "a variety" of social classes.[/b][/quote}
Yes, dad's a retired professor, mom's a failed academic/school teacher. They have shitloads of cash and a nice house. I think that makes them "upper class." The thread that came up in, I believe, was the "bimbo trophy wife" one, I believe, and I was saying there was no such thing.
[quote][b]- Moved out of the city to get away from crime and low quality schools and dedicate herself to raising kids.[/b]

Yep, that one's right.

quote:

[b]- Is studying criminology and continues to believe that there is a genetic link to violent behaviour.[/b]

Nope. Am studying criminology and reading about all aspects of violent behaviour. I have no background in the subject and am just reading my textbook. Based on what I've read so far, I don't believe there's a genetic link.

quote:

[b]- News story that mentions that a school with problems of violence is near an Aboriginal reserve "doesn't set off alarm bells" for her.[/b]

That's right. The fact that the school was located to the Aboriginal reserve seemed to be a non-issue, just like, as I believe said, if the school had been located next to a coal mine. As I also said at the time, I am on the lookout all the time for prejudice, and that particular story didn't set off alarm bells for me.

quote:

[b]- 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".[/b]

I'm an ex-entrepeneur, actually. And my point in that thread was that businesspeople aren't automatically evil.

quote:

[b]- She defends her class - saying that we have all known "ethical businesspeople" and "slacker workers". Perhaps so - but what is the point here?[/b]

I don't have a "class." I'm neither an ethical business person nor a slacker worker. The point is that don't tar, as Fidel appears to, all people with the same brush.

quote:

[b]I personally thought all of Phrillie's views were worth discussing and debating.[/b]

If that's true, unionist, I must say, you have a frightening way of showing it.

quote:

[b]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.[/b]

Again. this is fair criticism. If I hang around, I will try to do better about making statements and not asking questions.

quote:

[b]I do hope she stays.[/b]

Hmm.

quote:

[b]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 ....[/b]

No, I don't want "only agreement." But I do want FAIR discusssion. If I say "the crime rate is higher for blacks than it is for whites," I want the response to be "Oh, yeah, why do you think that?" rather than "You're a Nazi."

Mon, 2007-05-21 14:29

#53

Phrillie

quote:

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]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.[/b]

For crying out loud, what is this "sort of stuff"? It's an introductory, general criminology course from Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. The (as far as I can see, progressive) textbook deals with genetic, biological, social, blah, blah, blah, theories of crime.

quote:

[b] Phrillie, you are going to have to get used to having your views challenged here. That's what a discussion forum is for.[/b]

Challenged, for sure, I look forward to it. Attacked by hysterical shrieking ninnies? No.

quote:

[b]And the rest of us should remember that challenging views does not have to include personal attacks.[/b]

Thank you.

Mon, 2007-05-21 14:38

#54

Summer

quote:

Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b][b]Bye-bye, babble.[/b][/b]

Shortest lived flounce ever?

Mon, 2007-05-21 14:44

#55

Phrillie

quote:

Originally posted by Summer:
[b]Shortest lived flounce ever?[/b]

Oh, I think not. I just split and stack over a cord of firewood.

Mon, 2007-05-21 15:14

#56

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]For crying out loud, what is this "sort of stuff"?
[/b]

"This sort of stuff" is looking for genetic rather than social sources of criminal behaviour - in case you didn't read the rest of the thread.

Oh, and welcome back.

Mon, 2007-05-21 15:18

#57

Phrillie

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]"This sort of stuff" is looking for genetic rather than social sources of criminal behaviour - in case you didn't read the rest of the thread.[/b]

And, in case you didn't read the thread, I am looking for social sources rather than genetic explanations (e.g. if black crime rate is higher, what about racial profiling, etc.?) Why don't you take this up with SFU's criminology dep't?

quote:

[b]Oh, and welcome back.[/b]

Ppshaw. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to dig up some oysters for our dinner. Ciao for now.

Mon, 2007-05-21 15:23

#58

Sven

This thread raises an interesting side subject (probably worth a thread to itself).

[THREAD DRIFT]

I need to do some serious reading on the subject of [b][i]free will[/b][/i] but it has occurred to me that while we are not solely the product of our genes, we are solely the product of a physical world and a physical body. And, I think an intriguing hypothetical illustrates how little control (or free will) that we may have:

Assume that there are two people, who are frozen for a moment in two separate and identical rooms, whose every cell and every atom are identical. When “unfrozen”, they are each asked an identical question. Will they not necessarily answer the question identically? In other words, they have no free will. The only way they could answer the question differently would be if they had a non-physical consciousness (a soul) that was independent of their identical bodies. I don’t know how else they could answer the question (or respond to any external stimuli)—but identically.

So, while we are not ruled exclusively by our genes, it seems to me that the combination of our genes and the external stimuli that constantly bombards us controls how we act—and to act without free will.

I remember reading an article by a philosopher on this subject and his view was that a growing realization that we may not have free will would make criminals not culpable for their acts—because they could not act in a different way.

[/THREAD DRIFT]

Mon, 2007-05-21 15:28

#59

Sven

Should potential genetic predispositions to certain behaviors not be explored scientifically due to the answers such an inquiry might reveal? In other words, is the question simply better left unasked?

It may be found, after rigorous examination, that there is zero correlation between genetics and any particular behavior. It may be found that there is a slight genetic influence on behavior. It may be found that there is a significant, but not controlling, influence that genetics has on behavior. But, before that inquiry is even started, should it be started at all due to the ramifications it could have?

Mon, 2007-05-21 15:44

#60

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

There are plenty of social/environmental schools of thought out there that present theories for deviant and criminal behaviour. I'm surprised your course is focused on biological theories since they have fallen out of favour. They were certainly dismissed outright when I studied a criminology course (part of sociology studies) in the early 80s.

If conservative criminology theories have made a comeback at Canadian universites, then things are pretty bleak. I know that in general, there has been a shift to the right on university campuses sadly enough.

quote:

Cesare Lombroso and his Italian School of criminology argued against the utlitarian school by assuming that deviants and criminals break social norms and laws due to atavistic traits. In other words, they believed that these people are not as highly advanced in the evolutionary process as normally functioning members of society. The Italian School also believed that these atavistic traits are indicated by physical, biological indicators of a person such as body type or the shape of the face. These theorists believed that deviants are not flexible individuals; criminal tendencies stem from biological factors, and thus they believed that punishment would not work since biological determinants on crime would be more or less fate. Therefore, if punishment would not work, then neutralization of the deviant was necessary. The theorists in the Italian School believed that institutions such as mental hospitals, lifetime imprisonment, or the death sentence would neutralize the deviant and thus make the society fit for the normal people to live safely.
Ever since sociology has been used as a tool to describe and analyze deviance, however, the biological theories such as those found in the Italian School has fallen into unpopularity. Biological theories of deviance have been seen as racist, since ideas such as eugenics have been justified with these theories. US schools are currently the only schools that consider biological theories of deviance in any detail. Foreign schools only mention these ideas briefly and refute them with sociological studies in social deviance courses. This is due to the availability and interest of the study of DNA in the US. However, these "biosocial" theories are generally not accepted by the mainstream sociological community because of the tenuous (at best) link between biology and behavior, as well as the strong evidence that these biosocial theories base their ideas on flawed research, confounded variables, and confusion about causality (correlation does not imply causation).

[url=http://http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Social_Deviance/Early_Theories]Social Deviance: Early Theories[/url]

Mon, 2007-05-21 18:21

#61

500_Apples

quote:

Originally posted by laine lowe:
[b]There are plenty of social/environmental schools of thought out there that present theories for deviant and criminal behaviour. I'm surprised your course is focused on biological theories since they have fallen out of favour. They were certainly dismissed outright when I studied a criminology course (part of sociology studies) in the early 80s.
[/b]

For those babblers who have never been to university, I think it's worth pointing out that just because a course spends a lecture or two on a subject, it doesn't mean it is "focused" on that subject.

I took a sociology of Gender of class last term. The focus was very much what you'd eexpect it to be. That being said, there were still around 10-15% of the lectures on conservative theories such as evolutionary psychology.

[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

Mon, 2007-05-21 18:36

#62

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]
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.
[/b]

You think the only two explanations for European Jews excelling in the sciences are the white supremacist one (where the hell did you come up with that?) or a genetic one?

In other words, the only explanations are racial ones?

You'll forgive me for questioning your motives. Can you really be so naive as to know nothing, and not care to research, the attention paid by European Jewry to education, both religious and secular? And the socio-economic conditions which facilitated that attention being paid?

For you to leap to racial/hereditary explanations shows an instinct that is very far from the instincts of people who are progressive, scientific, and materialist.

Mon, 2007-05-21 18:45

#63

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]And, in case you didn't read the thread, I am looking for social sources rather than genetic explanations (e.g. if black crime rate is higher, what about racial profiling, etc.?)[/b]

Look, are you kidding yourself or me? Didn't you read my [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=20&t=001837#0... above[/url] where I noted the half-dozen times in this thread (up to that point alone) where you kept coming back and harping on genetic origins of anti-social behaviour? You don't have to take my word for it. The nice thing about this thread is that you only need to scroll up.

quote:

[b]Why don't you take this up with SFU's criminology dep't?[/b]

You raised it - you defend it. Please don't portray yourself as a shot messenger.

Mon, 2007-05-21 18:45

#64

500_Apples

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
You think the only two explanations for European Jews excelling in the sciences are the white supremacist one (where the hell did you come up with that?) or a genetic one?
[b]In other words, the only explanations are racial ones?[/b]
You'll forgive me for questioning your motives. Can you really be so naive as to know nothing, and not care to research, the attention paid by European Jewry to education, both religious and secular? And the socio-economic conditions which facilitated that attention being paid?
For you to leap to racial/hereditary explanations shows an instinct that is very far from the instincts of people who are progressive, scientific, and materialist.[/b]

Unionist, we can't really have discussions if you only read half the sentences in my post, because then you'll never really know what the hell I said.

This is what I wrote:

quote:

And if one is asking why, one should look at genetic factors as well as social factors rather than only social factors.

The scientific instinct is to explore all the worthwhile possibilities. I leave the progressive instinct to others.

Mon, 2007-05-21 18:56

#65

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]Unionist, we can't really have discussions if you only read half the sentences in my post, because then you'll never really know what the hell I said.[/b]

You really want me to consider [i]all[/i] your sentences, like this one:

quote:

My first guess would be that intellectual variance might correlate with certain diseases.

Your "first guess"? Really? You're a science student? Or what? And you think studies of intelligence (and anti-social behaviour) have maybe overemphasized social factors, and it's time to look at ethnicity!?

quote:

The scientific instinct is to explore all the worthwhile possibilities. I leave the progressive instinct to others.

You certainly do.

Mon, 2007-05-21 19:14

#66

500_Apples

Unionist, I'm not really into flame wars, I see them as pointless and I don't see why you enjoy them so much.

I believe behavior is governed by both biology and environment. I believe in evolution, not creationism. I believe smoking is bad for you. I believe global warming is most likely caused by our greenhouse emmissions. As you can tell, conemporary political ideologies do not interest me too much. I'm comfortable abandoning something when I'm shown that something is inconsistent with other things or simply doesn't hold water.

I did say my first instinct is to assume biological causes. That doesn't my opinion is that everything is due to biological causes. My first instinct on a roller coaster is "I'm going to die," even though I know I probably won't and I know that. And there are a ton of examples in between. Can you tell the difference?

I want to get a feel for your instincts, as I'm not sure where you stand. Do you actually believe there are no biological factors to the accomplishments of people like Albert Einstein or Niels Bohr?

Mon, 2007-05-21 19:29

#67

500_Apples

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
And you think studies of intelligence (and anti-social behaviour) have maybe overemphasized social factors, and it's time to look at ethnicity!?
[/b]

They don't overemphasize social factors as far as I know. Whenever I take a look, there seems to be an effort for balance between biology and environment. As far as I know, the behaviorism of Watson and Skinner has fallen out of fashion a long time ago.

[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

Mon, 2007-05-21 19:39

#68

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]Do you actually believe there are no biological factors to the accomplishments of people like Albert Einstein or Niels Bohr?[/b]

Biological factors? Like health and diet?

Stick to genetic factors. That's what this discussion is about. And of course there are genetic factors to their accomplishments - factors which are common to [i]homo sapiens[/i]. What I "actually believe" is that there is no connection between any genetic factor inherent in their Jewish or half-Jewish (as in Bohr's case) ethnicity and their accomplishments.

[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

Mon, 2007-05-21 20:17

#69

500_Apples

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
Biological factors? Like health and diet?
Stick to genetic factors. That's what this discussion is about. And of course there are genetic factors to their accomplishments - factors which are common to [i]homo sapiens[/i]. What I "actually believe" is that there is no connection between any genetic factor inherent in their Jewish or half-Jewish (as in Bohr's case) ethnicity and their accomplishments.
[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: unionist ][/b]

1) If there are genetic factors to accomplishment, can there also be genetic factors to failings, such as crime?

2) I doubt any genes are ``inherent`` to any ethnicity, unless they're very new mutations (which does not apply as far as I know to this thread). In fact I'm pretty sure that's been conclusively demonstrated. I do think the correlation coefficient might vary between different ethnic groups. In the case of physical morphology it's very obvious. And there's seemingly a lot more plasticity to our neurology. That would mitigate but not erase any correlation.

Mon, 2007-05-21 21:13

#70

Phrillie

Man, you guys are the epitome of the perenially indignant. Grow up. Read what I wrote and then read what you accused me of. Thank you, 500_Apples for a reassuring burst of sanity. As for the rest of you, on this thread at least, you guys are FITH.

Mon, 2007-05-21 21:15

#71

Phrillie

Really, the only thing that bothers me about this thread is Unionist pulling a bunch of quotes which were (evidently) meant to show me in the worst possible light. One of those quotes was that I gave up a career to raise my kids at home. Scandal of scandals. Care to explain that POV, Unionist?

Mon, 2007-05-21 21:22

#72

Phrillie

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]You raised it - you defend it. Please don't portray yourself as a shot messenger.[/b]

This was in response to my suggestion that he take it up with SFU's criminology department.

Well, Unionist, I'm actually not in a position to defend SFU's criminology department.

Not really sure what a "shot messenger" is. If you mean "innocent," then I guess you're right, that's what I'm portraying myself as.

Do you have any idea what a self-righteous idiot you sound like in this thread?

I'm not "specifically studying" the genetic component of criminal behaviour. As I have said over and over and over, I'm taking an introductory course and we are looking at ALL theories of criminality.

If that offends you, then you better shut the universities down.

Christ, is this the new awareness we're always hearing about? You can have it, dude. You're a loser.

Mon, 2007-05-21 21:26

#73

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

quote:

Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]Man, you guys are the epitome of the perenially indignant. Grow up. Read what I wrote and then read what you accused me of. Thank you, 500_Apples for a reassuring burst of sanity. As for the rest of you, on this thread at least, you guys are FITH.[/b]

Indignant? I think everyone has been quite restrained given that genetic/biological theories for deviant and criminal behaviour are only adhered to by those who follow a conservative ideology.

Even if 500 Apples is correct and your course is providing an overview of those theories from a historical perspective, then perhaps you should be asking these questions to your prof. As it stands, your so-called need to discuss this issue could just as easily had been titled: [i]Eugenics Theory: Good or Bad?[/i]. Hiding behind naive inquisitiveness is not going diminish the vile implication of your questioning.

Mon, 2007-05-21 21:40

#74

500_Apples

quote:

Originally posted by laine lowe:
[b]
As it stands, your so-called need to discuss this issue could just as easily had been titled: [i]Eugenics Theory: Good or Bad?[/i]. Hiding behind naive inquisitiveness is not going diminish the vile implication of your questioning.[/b]

I think to have on one side recognizing the manifestly critical role of gene-environment interactions and their nonuniformity in the human population, and to have eugenics on the other side, one would need a very thick line.

To "justify" eugenics, aside from abandoning social and political traditions, one would need to assume perfect correlations between genes and groups, and to replace gene-environment interaction with genetic determinism. So that's 3 items (that I can think of), and this thread only sought to discuss the last of these 3 items, and was broached by someone beginning to tackle the subject.

Nobody has an [i]a priori[/i] knowledge of the validity of genetic determinism. As I've personally made clear in this thread, I don't think genetic determinism is valid for complex emergent properties like professional status, civility, intelligence, et cetera. (I could be wrong). I do think it's fair to discuss why or why not. I gave my opinion as to why not.

To be clear though, the interplay of gene-environment interaction should not be confused with environmental determinism. Environmental determinism is potentially as dangerous, and nearly as unscientific, as genetic determinism.

Mon, 2007-05-21 21:44

#75

Phrillie

quote:

Originally posted by laine lowe:
[b]Indignant? I think everyone has been quite restrained given that genetic/biological theories for deviant and criminal behaviour are only adhered to by those who follow a conservative ideology.
Even if 500 Apples is correct and your course is providing an overview of those theories from a historical perspective, then perhaps you should be asking these questions to your prof. As it stands, your so-called need to discuss this issue could just as easily had been titled: [i]Eugenics Theory: Good or Bad?[/i]. Hiding behind naive inquisitiveness is not going diminish the vile implication of your questioning.[/b]

Quite restrained??? You stopped just short of calling me Mengele. Good grief. It's not "naive inquisitiveness." It was a GODDAMN question about genetics (are siblings 50% related, remember?) which morphed into my questioning why genetic studies were used. Later, if you care to remember, I asked HYPOTHETICALLY, if there were a genetic
"recipe" which made people 80% more likely to commit a crime, then what would happen to the 20% category? My question was actually the REVERSE of what you are insinuating. What would be the safeguards AGAINST preventive criminal justice, was what I was getting at.

If you guys are too FITH to understand that, then I guess you're too FITH for intelligent people to talk to.

Enjoy your self-righteousness. This, by the way, is the reason the right laughs at you.

Mon, 2007-05-21 21:47

#76

Phrillie

The "vile implication" of my questioning. I'll just think that one over for a while and then get back to you, 'kay?

Mon, 2007-05-21 21:56

#77

Phrillie

quote:

[b]For you to leap to racial/hereditary explanations shows an instinct that is very far from the instincts of people who are progressive, scientific, and materialist. [/b]

Progressive, scientific and materialist? Like yourself, I suppose, Unionist? You're a shrew. Get real. Science is about making observations, formulating theories and testing them, and ultimately proving or disproving them. You're the antithesis of that -- you're into approving observations on the basis of political correctness. Your brand of science leads us ... nowhere.

Mon, 2007-05-21 23:49

#78

click here

A couple of weeks ago i read of a study that has been done recently; it involved the descendants of the McCoy family (that's the Hatfield-McCoy-feud McCoys). It seems that a very large number of these people are genetically inclined to "rage disease," which is a tendency to instant rage, with massively aggressive behaviour and the criminality that may result therefrom. The genetic predisposition seems to cause a tumor on the adrenal gland, which can trigger adrenaline surges and the rage behaviour. It seems "biology is destiny" at least some of the time.

About "smart Jews": if i were asked to think of the most intelligent people i've known, the most humorous, the most fun to be with -- most of them, maybe all of them, would be Jews. Maybe that means something, maybe it doesn't, but i do find it interesting (and to answer the possible question, i'm not Jewish, and possibly some Jews, hearing my views of Israel, might even find me an anti-semite. Nevertheless...)

Mon, 2007-05-28 19:40

#79

Westerly

This is off-topic but the thread seems dead anyway. Upon going through a relative's old family photos, I came across a picture of a little girl who bears an uncanny resemblance to me and, even more so, to my father. We were born around the same time.

My father and this girl's mother divorced and then the following year my father married my mother and that same year my elder sister was born. Three years later, this girl and I were both born.

The girl's purported father died prior to her birth so genetic testing would be out of the question. I don't see myself approaching my father on this issue. Could genetic testing between me and this woman confirm if we are half-sisters? Lastly, is this unethical? We are both well into our forties.

Mon, 2007-05-28 19:47

#80

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by click here:
[b]
About "smart Jews": if i were asked to think of the most intelligent people i've known, the most humorous, the most fun to be with -- most of them, maybe all of them, would be Jews. Maybe that means something, maybe it doesn't, but i do find it interesting (and to answer the possible question, i'm not Jewish, and possibly some Jews, hearing my views of Israel, might even find me an anti-semite. Nevertheless...)[/b]

Has it ever occurred to you that your observation may stem from these people's upbringing, culture, history, socialization, etc., rather than their DNA?

Do you honestly think a newborn infant of Jewish parents, raised from birth by a (say) Lutheran couple with no knowledge of the baby's origins, would grow up being able to deliver a decent punch-line?

Mon, 2007-05-28 19:59

#81

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
Has it ever occurred to you that your observation may stem from these people's upbringing, culture, history, socialization, etc., rather than their DNA?
Do you honestly think a newborn infant of Jewish parents, raised from birth by a (say) Lutheran couple with no knowledge of the baby's origins, would grow up being able to deliver a decent punch-line?[/b]

Is behavior (including criminal behavior) based on both genes and environment? Or, are you arguing that behavior is purely a result of environment?

Mon, 2007-05-28 20:02

#82

Westerly

quote:

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Is behavior (including criminal behavior) based on both genes and environment? [/b]

I think it's pretty clear that the entire human experience is based on gene/environment interaction.

Mon, 2007-05-28 20:08

#83

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]
Is behavior (including criminal behavior) based on both genes and environment? Or, are you arguing that behavior is purely a result of environment?[/b]

It is repugnant and offensive (I'll avoid the term racist) to suggest that the genes of one religious or ethnic group of human beings are sufficiently different from those of another such group to explain differences in sense of humour and anti-social behaviour.

Obviously human behaviour is a product of their genetic makeup as well as their environment - but not the distinctions among groups of human beings, as raised by the very hostile person who opened this thread.

Mon, 2007-05-28 20:09

#84

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Westerly:
[b]
I think it's pretty clear that the entire human experience is based on gene/environment interaction.[/b]

Yes, but that's a truism, as pointed out in my post above. It has nothing to do with finding "criminal" genes or "humorous" genes or "intelligent" genes in particular ethnic or religious groups.

Mon, 2007-05-28 20:13

#85

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
It is repugnant and offensive (I'll avoid the term racist) to suggest that the genes of one religious or ethnic group of human beings are sufficiently different from those of another such group to explain differences in sense of humour and anti-social behaviour.
Obviously human behaviour is a product of their genetic makeup as well as their environment - but not the distinctions among groups of human beings, as raised by the very hostile person who opened this thread.[/b]

I know nothing about this subject, so I'm asking an innocent question: Certain racial groups have tendencies towards certain genetic defects (like African Americans and sickle cell anemia). If genes influence behavior, why is it unthinkable that genes of a racial group could similarly affect behavior within that racial group, ala sickle cell anemia? I'm trying to understand this from a scientific POV, not a political one.

Mon, 2007-05-28 20:20

#86

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]
I'm trying to understand this from a scientific POV, not a political one.[/b]

Then go out and find a scientific study which shows patterns of different behaviour among infants raised by other racial or ethnic groups than their birth parents. Make sure the study has factored out social influences.

Better yet - or as a prelude to the above - tell me if you have any anecdotal or folk knowledge of differing behaviour on the part of different ethnic groups that can't be explained purely by social-historical-environmental factors. Surely, at this point in human social development, if there were different behaviours attributable to different groups (with all non-genetic causes factored out), somebody would have noticed them!!

Yet, no one has.

Or have you?

Mon, 2007-05-28 20:28

#87

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Yet, no one has.
Or have you?[/b]

No. But, I get the sense that some feel that the subject shouldn't even be studied...more for political reasons than scientific.

Should there be studies to determine whether behaviors are tied, to some degree, to genetics?

Mon, 2007-05-28 20:34

#88

Westerly

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Obviously human behaviour is a product of their genetic makeup as well as their environment - but not the distinctions among groups of human beings, as raised by the very hostile person who opened this thread.[/b]

Are you saying that there are distinctions among groups of humans?

Mon, 2007-05-28 20:36

#89

Westerly

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Yes, but that's a truism, as pointed out in my post above. It has nothing to do with finding "criminal" genes or "humorous" genes or "intelligent" genes in particular ethnic or religious groups.[/b]

No, you said it was the result of genes and environment. I'm agreeing with that but adding gene/environment interaction as a third factor.

Mon, 2007-05-28 20:40

#90

Westerly

quote:

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Should there be studies to determine whether behaviors are tied, to some degree, to genetics?[/b]

I think that would be a scientific impossibility because, as alluded to way earlier in this thread, the only valid test group would be identical twins, separated at birth, and you could never find enough examples to put together a study. In any event, it would be a very odd thing to study, given that you can't change genetics. Much more practical, I would think, to study how environmental factors predict behaviour.

Mon, 2007-05-28 20:51

#91

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Westerly:
[b]
Are you saying that there are distinctions among groups of humans?[/b]

You misread my post. Perhaps I structured the sentence poorly. I said human behaviour is a product of both genetic makeup and environment (and yes, obviously, their interaction - did you really have to add that) - but human behaviour is [b]not[/b] a product of genetic distinctions between different racial, religious, or ethnic groups.

Why do you ask? Do you think different racial, ethnic or religious groups have different propensities to anti-social behaviour, or humour, or "intelligence", based on purely genetic factors?

Just to be very clear - [b]I do not[/b] - and I have never seen a shred of alleged evidence that suggests that such differences based on genetic makeup exist.

Mon, 2007-05-28 21:00

#92

Sven

quote:

Originally posted by Westerly:
[b]
I think that would be a scientific impossibility because, as alluded to way earlier in this thread, the only valid test group would be identical twins, separated at birth, and you could never find enough examples to put together a study. In any event, it would be a very odd thing to study, given that you can't change genetics. Much more practical, I would think, to study how environmental factors predict behaviour.[/b]

A study was conducted at the University of Minnesota of identical twins separated at birth to examine the link between genes and homosexuality. Although if one twin was gay, it wasn't a 100% guarantee that the other twin would be gay, but the study concluded that there was a significant correlation, thus showing a genetic component for homosexuality.

I agree that understanding environmental factors that influence crime would be more productive, but the study of a genetic component would be interesting from a perspective of moral culpability (i.e., is a person less morally culpable for behavior if the behavior is, in part, based on genes?).

Mon, 2007-05-28 21:05

#93

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]
the study of a genetic component would be interesting from a perspective of moral culpability (i.e., is a person less morally culpable for behavior if the behavior is, in part, based on genes?).[/b]

How can you ask such a question when there's no shred of evidence of such a link?

How does it differ from this question above:

quote:

If a particular genetic make-up predisposed somebody to aggression, then what (if anything) should society do with that information?

Or my version of that dishonest question:

quote:

"If science proved that children of certain races were more prone to shoplifting, what (if any) security measures should shopping malls take?"

Mon, 2007-05-28 21:05

#94

Westerly

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]You misread my post. Perhaps I structured the sentence poorly. I said human behaviour is a product of both genetic makeup and environment (and yes, obviously, their interaction - did you really have to add that)[/b]

It's quite relevant. Environmental factors can turn genes off/on so, yes, I'd say it's an important third category. If that's obvious to you, I certainly didn't mean to insult you. It may not be obvious to everybody else.

quote:

[b] - but human behaviour is [b]not[/b] a product of genetic distinctions between different racial, religious, or ethnic groups.[/b]

That may have been what you meant but what you said was that human behaviour was all genes and environment, however, the behavioural distinctions between human groups were not due to genes and environment. You seemed to be asserting distinctions between human groups and I was clarifying.

quote:

[b]Why do you ask? Do you think different racial, ethnic or religious groups have different propensities to anti-social behaviour, or humour, or "intelligence", based on purely genetic factors?[/b]

No, I don't think any human behaviour is purely genetic. We're not machines.

quote:

[b]Just to be very clear - [b]I do not[/b] - and I have never seen a shred of alleged evidence that suggests that such differences based on genetic makeup exist.[/b]

Me, either. But, earlier, you seemed to be asserting that there were in fact differences and I was just wondering if you did think that and, if you did, what those differences were.

Mon, 2007-05-28 21:07

#95

Unionist

You know, Westerly, no offence, but I have zero interest in continuing a dialogue based on what you thought I said, my clarifying it, then you justifying why you misunderstood what I said, ad nauseam. So carry on if you like.

Mon, 2007-05-28 21:10

#96

Westerly

quote:

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]A study was conducted at the University of Minnesota of identical twins separated at birth to examine the link between genes and homosexuality.[/b]

I guess identical twins are a lot more common that I had supposed. I would have thought the pool of identical twins, separated at birth, where one had an identifiable study characteristic, and would be willing to participate in a study, would be infinitesimal.

quote:

[b]but the study of a genetic component would be interesting from a perspective of moral culpability (i.e., is a person less morally culpable for behavior if the behavior is, in part, based on genes?).[/b]

Nah, we don't want to go there. It won't be about making someone less culpable. It'll be about genetic discrimination prior to a crime that may never have happened anyway.

This is what scares the shit out of me about mental health screening.

Mon, 2007-05-28 21:13

#97

Westerly

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]You know, Westerly, no offence, but I have zero interest in continuing a dialogue based on what you thought I said, my clarifying it, then you justifying why you misunderstood what I said, ad nauseam. So carry on if you like.[/b]

Sure, but you should understand that you didn't "clarify" your statement. You merely denied that you had said it. I don't need to justify interpreting your words at face value.

Mon, 2007-05-28 21:13

#98

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Westerly:
[b]
It won't be about making someone less culpable. It'll be about genetic discrimination prior to a crime that may never have happened anyway.[/b]

Hey Westerly, have you ever studied criminology?

Mon, 2007-05-28 21:19

#99

Westerly

Two quotes from above:

[b]If a particular genetic make-up predisposed somebody to aggression, then what (if anything) should society do with that information?[/b]

and (used as an example to make the first quote look absurd):

[b]"If science proved that children of certain races were more prone to shoplifting, what (if any) security measures should shopping malls take?"[/b]

This really interests me because I have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder (although I'm not a believer) and my supposed "genetic predisposition" to violence against myself and society gets me into no end of trouble.

Why aren't the people who would jump up and down at the notion of racial profiling (progressive friends and family) leaping to my defence?

What is the difference between these two systems of screening?

Mon, 2007-05-28 21:20

#100

Westerly

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Hey Westerly, have you ever studied criminology?[/b]

Are you suggesting that I'm phrillie?

Young man, that is some chutzpah.

Mon, 2007-05-28 21:22

#101

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Westerly:
[b]
Are you suggesting that I'm phrillie?
[/b]

No, of course I'm not. But could you ask her to phone me when she has a minute?

very basic genetics question

Pages