5 ms·

> In the long run all that matters is culture. Genetics seems to play a key role in the development of culture and social structure. If you move 1M Mexicans in

> In the long run all that matters is culture. Genetics seems to play a key role in the development of culture and social structure. If you move 1M Mexicans in Tokyo, their offspring will not act like Japanese people do, regardless of the environment. They would exhibit different behavioral and voting patterns.

panic 9y ago
That's not because of their genetics; it's because of a tendency for groups of people to reproduce their culture. If a family in Mexico City adopted a baby from Tokyo, the kid would become a part of Mexican culture, to the extent that the Mexican culture accepts people who don't look Mexican. They would not be a part of Japanese culture.
- Banthum 9y ago
  It's both. Large groups of people carry characteristic sets of genes which drive behavioral patterns, as well as culture which also drives behavioral patterns. On a large scale, the differences between Japanese and Mexicans are driven by cultural and genetic differences. The degree, balance, and nature of those differences is complex and up for debate, of course. But to state that Japanese and Mexicans have no distinguishing behavior-driving genes at all even in the slightest degree is basically the left-wing version of young-Earth creationism.
  - panic 9y ago
    Of course there are genes that affect behavior. I just don't think they're a major factor given how easily the children of immigrants can assimilate into cultures that are willing to accept them.
  - jholman 9y ago
    Do we have any evidence at all that any of the behaviour differences between populations are genetic? I'm not well-educated in this area, but I'm aware of no such evidence. Educate me? As far as I can tell (again, in my relative ignorance), the assertion that "genetics seems to play a key role in the development of culture and social structure" is just as foolish and unsupported as the claim that you dismissed.
    - MichaelGG 9y ago
      I'm honestly curious in why you think it's likely there are no genetic differences. Everyone accepts physical attributes, most people accept the brain is responsible for consciousness and personality and is a physical object. Would it not be completey bizarre if there were zero differences in the one most complex organ we do not understand? Would you argue that no group of people are taller? Or could run faster? Or perhaps have varying levels of visual acuity? What would cause such differences to suddenly just completely stop because it's related to the brain? http://m.pnas.org/content/106/7/2118.abstract http://m.pnas.org/content/106/7/2118.abstract
      - geofft 9y ago
        One reason to believe there are no meaningful genetic differences is that we've seen large-scale migration leading to different cultures among genetically similar people, and similar cultures among genetically diverse people. There are a lot of people with the same Anglo-Saxon stock in "red state" America, in "blue-state" America, and in the UK with rather different cultures, political preferences, social norms, etc. There are a lot of ethnic Russian diaspora communities who did not lean towards communism during the 20th century. (Yes, this is a pointed example, but I think we need to be clear about what our examples are, or everyone is going to argue about their own unstated personal stereotypes and we won't be discussing anything productive.) There are plenty of second-generation immigrants in America, like myself, who have basically assimilated into the dominant culture and carry little of their ancestors' culture beyond what was impressed on us in childhood via nurture. Meanwhile, there are lots of different genetic groups making up America, even within a race - the American definition of "white" is extremely genetically diverse and contains lots of backgrounds that have formed separate identities in Europe, and you don't see a lot of cultural separation on those lines. You see cultural separation on visible lines like actual skin color, language, recency of immigration, etc. But all of that is more easily explained by humans making conscious choices to associate with certain people we think are like ourselves, not genetics. Tendency towards aggression, as your paper shows, is an individual characteristic, and something that can be overridden in either direction by social norms. (Even within a fairly homogenous genetic group, there's a huge amount of individual variation in aggressiveness.) I'm certainly happy to concede that genetics matters a lot at the individual level, but it's a large leap to find that it matters at the cultural level. If you introduce one million people without (or with) this gene slowly into a culture of people with (or without) this gene, letting them assimilate, letting them have children and raise them within the existing culture and intermarry, would we expect a chance in cultural norms for people with this genetic background? Possibly, but I certainly wouldn't expect one.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
And you think that's because of some Mexican genetic imperative, rather than because they bring their culture with them?
- Red_Tarsius 9y ago
  Please read Banthum's post. I couldn't word my stance any better.
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    I won't claim that genetics have absolutely zero influence on behavior, but you claimed that genetics (by which you appear to mean ethnicity) plays "a key role in the development of culture and social structure", and I don't believe that you have any evidence for that.
jmmcd 9y ago
The fact you chose 1M is telling. If you move 1 Mexican child, at birth, to Tokyo, and that Mexican is brought up by Japanese parents etc, I think you will expect fairly strong conformance to Japanese culture. This is sufficient to disprove a large genetic component in human culture/behaviour.
- Red_Tarsius 9y ago
  The sample size = 1 may not be enough to perceive any meaningful difference[x], but it doesn't matter. Migratory waves are not made of 1 infant with no parents. People mostly come in great numbers and carve their own ethnic communities within the host country. [x]Various studies have found the heritability of IQ to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults and 0.45 in childhood in the United States. It may seem reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, that the opposite occurs is well documented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#estimates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#estimates
  - jmmcd 9y ago
    > The sample size = 1 may not be enough to perceive any meaningful difference Yes, and I assumed this was obvious. I did say "expect", after all. But a large-N experiment where each child is in the "isolated" condition is totally different from a large-N experiment where a large population is transplanted. > Migratory waves are not made of 1 infant with no parents. Whether immigrant communities preserve culture etc is not in question. I'm only refuting the point that there is a large genetic component, and your argument here effectively concedes that.

panic 9y ago

That's not because of their genetics; it's because of a tendency for groups of people to reproduce their culture. If a family in Mexico City adopted a baby from Tokyo, the kid would become a part of Mexican culture, to the extent that the Mexican culture accepts people who don't look Mexican. They would not be a part of Japanese culture.

Banthum 9y ago
It's both. Large groups of people carry characteristic sets of genes which drive behavioral patterns, as well as culture which also drives behavioral patterns. On a large scale, the differences between Japanese and Mexicans are driven by cultural and genetic differences. The degree, balance, and nature of those differences is complex and up for debate, of course. But to state that Japanese and Mexicans have no distinguishing behavior-driving genes at all even in the slightest degree is basically the left-wing version of young-Earth creationism.
- panic 9y ago
  Of course there are genes that affect behavior. I just don't think they're a major factor given how easily the children of immigrants can assimilate into cultures that are willing to accept them.
- jholman 9y ago
  Do we have any evidence at all that any of the behaviour differences between populations are genetic? I'm not well-educated in this area, but I'm aware of no such evidence. Educate me? As far as I can tell (again, in my relative ignorance), the assertion that "genetics seems to play a key role in the development of culture and social structure" is just as foolish and unsupported as the claim that you dismissed.
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    I'm honestly curious in why you think it's likely there are no genetic differences. Everyone accepts physical attributes, most people accept the brain is responsible for consciousness and personality and is a physical object. Would it not be completey bizarre if there were zero differences in the one most complex organ we do not understand? Would you argue that no group of people are taller? Or could run faster? Or perhaps have varying levels of visual acuity? What would cause such differences to suddenly just completely stop because it's related to the brain? http://m.pnas.org/content/106/7/2118.abstract http://m.pnas.org/content/106/7/2118.abstract
    - geofft 9y ago
      One reason to believe there are no meaningful genetic differences is that we've seen large-scale migration leading to different cultures among genetically similar people, and similar cultures among genetically diverse people. There are a lot of people with the same Anglo-Saxon stock in "red state" America, in "blue-state" America, and in the UK with rather different cultures, political preferences, social norms, etc. There are a lot of ethnic Russian diaspora communities who did not lean towards communism during the 20th century. (Yes, this is a pointed example, but I think we need to be clear about what our examples are, or everyone is going to argue about their own unstated personal stereotypes and we won't be discussing anything productive.) There are plenty of second-generation immigrants in America, like myself, who have basically assimilated into the dominant culture and carry little of their ancestors' culture beyond what was impressed on us in childhood via nurture. Meanwhile, there are lots of different genetic groups making up America, even within a race - the American definition of "white" is extremely genetically diverse and contains lots of backgrounds that have formed separate identities in Europe, and you don't see a lot of cultural separation on those lines. You see cultural separation on visible lines like actual skin color, language, recency of immigration, etc. But all of that is more easily explained by humans making conscious choices to associate with certain people we think are like ourselves, not genetics. Tendency towards aggression, as your paper shows, is an individual characteristic, and something that can be overridden in either direction by social norms. (Even within a fairly homogenous genetic group, there's a huge amount of individual variation in aggressiveness.) I'm certainly happy to concede that genetics matters a lot at the individual level, but it's a large leap to find that it matters at the cultural level. If you introduce one million people without (or with) this gene slowly into a culture of people with (or without) this gene, letting them assimilate, letting them have children and raise them within the existing culture and intermarry, would we expect a chance in cultural norms for people with this genetic background? Possibly, but I certainly wouldn't expect one.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

And you think that's because of some Mexican genetic imperative, rather than because they bring their culture with them?

Red_Tarsius 9y ago
Please read Banthum's post. I couldn't word my stance any better.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  I won't claim that genetics have absolutely zero influence on behavior, but you claimed that genetics (by which you appear to mean ethnicity) plays "a key role in the development of culture and social structure", and I don't believe that you have any evidence for that.

jmmcd 9y ago

The fact you chose 1M is telling. If you move 1 Mexican child, at birth, to Tokyo, and that Mexican is brought up by Japanese parents etc, I think you will expect fairly strong conformance to Japanese culture. This is sufficient to disprove a large genetic component in human culture/behaviour.

Red_Tarsius 9y ago
The sample size = 1 may not be enough to perceive any meaningful difference[x], but it doesn't matter. Migratory waves are not made of 1 infant with no parents. People mostly come in great numbers and carve their own ethnic communities within the host country. [x]Various studies have found the heritability of IQ to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults and 0.45 in childhood in the United States. It may seem reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, that the opposite occurs is well documented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#estimates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#estimates
- jmmcd 9y ago
  > The sample size = 1 may not be enough to perceive any meaningful difference Yes, and I assumed this was obvious. I did say "expect", after all. But a large-N experiment where each child is in the "isolated" condition is totally different from a large-N experiment where a large population is transplanted. > Migratory waves are not made of 1 infant with no parents. Whether immigrant communities preserve culture etc is not in question. I'm only refuting the point that there is a large genetic component, and your argument here effectively concedes that.