3 ms·

More closely linked to their phenotype at any rate. And though DNA is in fact alterable, that's pretty irrelevant, culturally speaking.

• gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
  Oops should have said raw, uncompiled, bits I agree DNA isn't that culturally relevant to an identity but that just seems to be due to anti-intellectualism Separate from the idea that the easier to alter something is, the more it should considered as a healthy part of identity..
  • GTP 1y ago
    > I agree DNA isn't that culturally relevant to an identity but that just seems to be due to anti-intellectualism I think that the actual reason is that we know that a person isn't determined by their DNA alone, but there are many epigenetic factors at play, like the environment a person lives in while growing. Why you say it's due to anti-intellectualism?
    • gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
      Not alone, but I do believe the variation in personality (to the extent verifiable by twins studies) is at least half genetic https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118970843.ch139 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118970843.ch... So it should be at least "50% relevant"? Anti-intellectualism.. meaning the idea that "common sense" is all that is needed to understand or work with the "self", no need to venture near abstract/symbolic models of "objective reality" I do think altering epigenetics is the most efficient way to improve character-- but that some people don't think about this way is imho a sign that they don't think biological abstractions should be relevant to their everyday life :)