4 ms·

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 respon

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.
jholman 9y ago
I'm honestly curious why you would infer that I think it's likely there are likely no genetic differences. I said nothing of the kind.

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.

jholman 9y ago

I'm honestly curious why you would infer that I think it's likely there are likely no genetic differences. I said nothing of the kind.