4 ms·

> What black magic allows people to be biologically different physically but doesn't allow them to be biologically different behaviorally or mentally? I hear t

> What black magic allows people to be biologically different physically but doesn't allow them to be biologically different behaviorally or mentally? I hear this line of argument repeated all the time, delivered as if it's a bona fide mic-drop discussion-closer. Apparently those making the argument don't even consider that it's not-at-all established that behavioural/psychological/mental aptitude qualities are exclusively or even majority biologically predetermined. It's well known that human qualities very significantly in their degree of heritability. There's nothing remarkable about the suggestion that qualities of the mind will have a different level of heritability to physical traits like height and facial shape. We've all observed that siblings can be far more different behaviourally and cognitively than they are in appearance. And we should expect this to be the case, if we assume that the very purpose of consciousness is to enable us to adapt to the conditions we experience. Here's a different hypothesis to consider: for the majority of people, physical brain function is pretty consistent, the way eye, nose, kidney, liver, heart and spleen function is pretty consistent, particularly at birth, before the wear and tear of life has had an impact. But behaviour becomes more variable as a person develops, due to different conditions and experiences, causing certain kinds of emotion and cognitive function to be enhanced, and others to be diminished. E.g., somebody who grows up living with fear and anxiety due to lacking a sense of security will develop enhanced amygdala activity and chronic sensitivity to threat, and thus a reduced development of other brain parts and forms of cognition. Extrapolate all the kinds of differences in conditions a developing person will experience, and you end up with great variability in people's cognitive "tuning", and resultant personality and aptitudes, that has little to do with their genetics.

leafboi 6y ago
The mic dropper here is that environment influences behavior but so do genetics. BOTH are factors. The problem with society and you is that you choose to ignore the genetic factor and only choose to examine the environmental factor because it fits with your social construct of how the world should be. Science and reality exist separate to your ethical constructs, and there is scientific evidence that proves it. You view the world as a two sided hypothesis. Either nature or nurture with nature being racist so nurture is better. But you are aware that this isn't true on some level. You know that genetics influences differences in behavior between men and women so much so that men and women across the globe can be fit into certain behavioral stereotypes that are sexist to talk about but at the same time exist as a permanent part of the fabric of reality. Anecdotally it is literally impossible to ignore the masculine behavioral traits of a trans woman because the genetics influencing behavior are so prevalent. That's not evidence however. Let's not get into that because anecdotal arguments can become circular: When I present an example and you rewrite reality so that it fits your ethical world view or vice versa. Let us consider scientific studies. Is behavior caused nature or nurture or both? Obviously both, but let us see what happens when we control the nature part by only looking at twins or triplets separated at birth. What are the behavioral differences?: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/5-true-stories-twins-separated-at-birth2.htm https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/5-true-storie... I have long discovered that there's no such thing as a "mic dropper" the extent that humans will go to bend the evidence and examine improbable possibilities to maintain their ethical and moral world view is extensive. A logical argument will not convert a christian to an atheist and it will not change you. What follows from you, if you read this, is a long and involved break down to discredit my evidence a reexamination of the context from biased angles until you use the logic to construct a universe that fits the world how you see it rather than the world as it truly is. The bottom line is: genetics made your brain therefore it influences your brain and in turn, your behavior. If such genetic differences exist between twins and between sexes then it must exist between race. And keep in mind... never ever did I say environment is not a major influence for behavior. I never said otherwise i am only saying that to ignore genetics and say that genetics do not influence race is scientific folly and irrationality.
- tomhoward 6y ago
  > The problem with society and you is that you choose to ignore the genetic factor and only choose to examine the environmental factor because it fits with your social construct of how the world should be In my case this is 100% wrong. I spent several years being a Dawkins devotee and committed atheist/materialist and genetic determinist. I've since had cause to learn more about environmental/non-genetic factors, and have undertaken extensive research and self-experimentation on ways that personality, behaviour and cognition can be influenced. I don't discount the genetic factors, at all. But I've learned through deep research and experience that genetics are only part of the picture, and that non-genetic factors are extremely important, because whether or not they are more than 50% influential, the fact that they are significant at all opens up huge opportunities for life improvement for people who would otherwise be written off as being genetically impaired, when their problems may not actually be genetic at all. I accept your observation that many people's views on this topic are ideologically motivated. I'm not one of those people. I do observe, however, that the overwhelmingly dominant view in the biomedical science community since the discovery of DNA has been that genetics are the primary determinant of all human traits including intelligence and personality, and that this has an overwhelming influence on the kind of research that gets funded and the views that supposedly "intelligent" or "rational" people are supposed to hold and promote. I know the people who are ideologically motivated to promote alternative positions are not offering much of value, but that doesn't mean that alternative positions of value don't exist, just that they're being drowned out by noisy dogmatists on both sides. My main position is that it's time to break through the dogma from all quarters and embrace a balanced approach that is both scientifically grounded and that empowers people to build better lives, no matter their genetics.

leafboi 6y ago

The mic dropper here is that environment influences behavior but so do genetics. BOTH are factors. The problem with society and you is that you choose to ignore the genetic factor and only choose to examine the environmental factor because it fits with your social construct of how the world should be. Science and reality exist separate to your ethical constructs, and there is scientific evidence that proves it. You view the world as a two sided hypothesis. Either nature or nurture with nature being racist so nurture is better. But you are aware that this isn't true on some level. You know that genetics influences differences in behavior between men and women so much so that men and women across the globe can be fit into certain behavioral stereotypes that are sexist to talk about but at the same time exist as a permanent part of the fabric of reality. Anecdotally it is literally impossible to ignore the masculine behavioral traits of a trans woman because the genetics influencing behavior are so prevalent. That's not evidence however. Let's not get into that because anecdotal arguments can become circular: When I present an example and you rewrite reality so that it fits your ethical world view or vice versa. Let us consider scientific studies. Is behavior caused nature or nurture or both? Obviously both, but let us see what happens when we control the nature part by only looking at twins or triplets separated at birth. What are the behavioral differences?: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/5-true-stories-twins-separated-at-birth2.htm https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/5-true-storie... I have long discovered that there's no such thing as a "mic dropper" the extent that humans will go to bend the evidence and examine improbable possibilities to maintain their ethical and moral world view is extensive. A logical argument will not convert a christian to an atheist and it will not change you. What follows from you, if you read this, is a long and involved break down to discredit my evidence a reexamination of the context from biased angles until you use the logic to construct a universe that fits the world how you see it rather than the world as it truly is. The bottom line is: genetics made your brain therefore it influences your brain and in turn, your behavior. If such genetic differences exist between twins and between sexes then it must exist between race. And keep in mind... never ever did I say environment is not a major influence for behavior. I never said otherwise i am only saying that to ignore genetics and say that genetics do not influence race is scientific folly and irrationality.

tomhoward 6y ago
> The problem with society and you is that you choose to ignore the genetic factor and only choose to examine the environmental factor because it fits with your social construct of how the world should be In my case this is 100% wrong. I spent several years being a Dawkins devotee and committed atheist/materialist and genetic determinist. I've since had cause to learn more about environmental/non-genetic factors, and have undertaken extensive research and self-experimentation on ways that personality, behaviour and cognition can be influenced. I don't discount the genetic factors, at all. But I've learned through deep research and experience that genetics are only part of the picture, and that non-genetic factors are extremely important, because whether or not they are more than 50% influential, the fact that they are significant at all opens up huge opportunities for life improvement for people who would otherwise be written off as being genetically impaired, when their problems may not actually be genetic at all. I accept your observation that many people's views on this topic are ideologically motivated. I'm not one of those people. I do observe, however, that the overwhelmingly dominant view in the biomedical science community since the discovery of DNA has been that genetics are the primary determinant of all human traits including intelligence and personality, and that this has an overwhelming influence on the kind of research that gets funded and the views that supposedly "intelligent" or "rational" people are supposed to hold and promote. I know the people who are ideologically motivated to promote alternative positions are not offering much of value, but that doesn't mean that alternative positions of value don't exist, just that they're being drowned out by noisy dogmatists on both sides. My main position is that it's time to break through the dogma from all quarters and embrace a balanced approach that is both scientifically grounded and that empowers people to build better lives, no matter their genetics.