Attitudes and Culture

[Ishtara Rothschild]

I'm not suggesting that less aggressive cultures are somehow "better" than the more aggressive ones. As far as technological and economic success goes, the more aggressive cultures have clearly faired better and achieved a lot more. I mean, more peaceful or not, I wouldn't want to live in a Bushman tribe. I'm glad that the ongoing conquering efforts of my ancestors have led to huge nations and a great deal of cultural and technological exchange, even though our more aggressive traits can lead to social problems in times of peace. And as I said, if we were to completely lose these traits, we'd quickly be replaced by more aggressive cultures.

I can only hope that humanity will grow into one single, planet-wide culture at some time in the future, and that we will manage to create enough wealth for the entire human population. At that point, it won't backfire on us when we lose our aggressive and competitive traits. Which will inevitably happen, seeing that females select for less aggressive and less masculine mates in less dangerous environments with lower mortality rates (Link).

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

 

Yes, that was sort of where I was going with my comment, which was offered mostly in jest. Almost everyone agrees that observable characteristics are a combination of environmental influence and genetic makeup.

---

But only because environmental influence actively alters (the functionality of our existing) genetic makeup and neural structure.

 

---

Almost nobody, it seems, agrees on exactly how much of each is involved in any particular case.

---

There is no "how much of each" It's gene-environment interaction all the way down.

 

 

 

 

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Syo Emerald wrote:

 Again Ish just wants to look more intelligent than anybody else and try to point out that Europeans were the bad guys

Don't think too much about it.

---

That's a very profound argument which clearly disproves everything I've said. (That was sarcasm of course. If you think that it was my aim to paint Europeans as the bad guys, you haven't understood any of my posts. There is no "good" or "bad" here. It's all a matter of situational context). 

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Melita Magic wrote:

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

But I'm getting off topic. The Mexican culture doesn't differ that much from, say, the North American Catholic culture. Besides, the USA is a melting pot of cultures to begin with, so it's easy to fit into an existing cultural niche. An example for a vastly different culture would be Native Americans, who are still preserving their own unique culture(s) to a considerable extent even after several centuries.

---

Ishtara, not to be rude, but where are you getting some of this stuff?

Not sure what  you mean by the "North American Catholic culture." I'm not sure there is such a thing.

Also, just because there are many different heritages in the  U.S. it doesn't mean it all melds any better, or that it's any different in that regard than anywhere else. People still isolate or integrate themselves and their ways as they do anywhere else. 

As for Native Americans, have you ever even met one? I've spent time on a Rez and in fact it's a battle to keep their languages and ways alive. It's all being eroded by popular culture and the casinos, and money. The kids do not have as much interest in the old ways and native language as most elders would like. Much like most other heritages I guess.

It just seems sometimes as if you get this stuff from some idea you've formed rather than experience. I don't want to speak "for" any group, myself. But I mean, you could make that same claim about Oktoberfest.  It doesn't mean I know much about my German heritage - it just means I like potato salad.  But from the outside someone might see the polka dancing and yearly festival and think "wow, that heritage is still alive." Not so much.

 

---

I have to admit that I don't live in the USA and have never met a Native American. I also have no idea to which extent North American Catholics practice Catholic rituals (church attendance, celebration of religious holidays etc.) and how their religion affects their socio-cultural morals and values. So that part was mostly speculation, just as you seem to be speculating that the Oktoberfest tradition has anything to do with my culture (it doesn't, because I'm not a Bavarian).

Allow me to speculate about something different: If you were to emigrate to the Iran, how quickly do you think you'd adjust to the Iranian culture? How long would it take before you'd don a burqa and a veil? I for one think you would be completely incompatible to this culture. I further think that you would never consider moving to the Iran in the first place, which probably says a lot about the cultural compatibility of the people who *do* emigrate to different countries (meaning that they wouldn't emigrate to places with a culture that they cannot identify with).

[Void Singer]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

Would you disagree that all neural behavior is coded into the DNA of our neurons? How could these cells do anything that is not part of their DNA?

---

 you continue to surprise me, I really did not expect a reductionist argument. but ok, I'll play along. are the instructions for neural behavior of a cell different between say, a mouse, and an elephant? nope. so what is different? both the way they are put together, and the environment they inhabit. The connections that they form and the interactions between them determine a different pattern, even though they have the same building blocks.

---

Again, I'm not saying that all behavior is predetermined and that there is only one possible outcome for each genetic phenotype. But ultimately, all developmental outcomes have their basis in our genome, and you can't teach a human to be a platypus.

---

well good, at least we haven't lost you entirely to predetermination (that way lies madness), but you still seem to believe that the building material somehow decides what it will be used for. I'll agree that it can limit it from some applications, for instance a wooden plank, makes a very poor net. so while you can't teach a human to change it's form and be a platypus, you can teach one to actlike a platypus, just like you can use a plank to swat fish out of water.

---

As for instinctual behavior: What do you think instincts are? Most people assume that this term refers to a fixed behavioral program, but we only see that in the most primitive organisms. If you smell rotten meat and start to retch, that's instinct. If you think that a hot casserole smells great, that's instinct too. Fear? Instinct. Joy and pleasure? Instinct. Sexual attraction? Instinct. Stress reactions? Instinct. Love and friendship? Instinct. The urge to pee? Instinct. Suppressing that urge because you're in a social setting where it would be frowned upon if you stood up and pulled down your pants? Again, instinct.

---

I'm so glad you included that last one. it gives me three examples of learned behavior contrary to genetic predisposition. Not doing something because others frown up it is entirely learned, and entirely contextual. if you didn't know about, or weren't aware of it being frowned upon in that group, you'd have no reason not to, and probably would go right ahead and do it. Here's another, drawn from culture clash and personal experience... the smell of kimchi, which is regarded by many to smell "rotten", is regarded as pleasing by cultures that regularly eat it. You might argue that those people are genetically disposed to associate that smell differently, right? except that does not explain how their children when raised on a different diet (such as a few second gen immigrant friends of mine) can't stand it. This is easily explained by learned experience though. It also explains my hatred of the smell of bubblegum, which makes me nauseous, because I happened to have some during my childhood when I was deathly ill.

And as a final example there is a particular culture in which spitting on someone is a form of polite greeting... there isn't any biological basis for the behavior, it's just what they're taught one should do. the same can be said of crossing oneself and spitting when something "evil" is mentioned by name. the trigger may be fear (a base instinct) but the behavior itself has no biological origin, and is entirely learned and passed on by social conditioning.

---

Our entire complex social behavior is built on instinct. Contrary to popular belief, instincts don't force an animal to do anything, they are merely strong urges, fears, preferences and aversions. And of course there are many possible instinctual outcomes coded into our neural structure, which ethologists, neurologists and behavioral psychologists have dubbed prepared learning.

---

so close, and yet so far.....  YES built on, but NOT determined by. At best genetics only sets up a boundary limit of what's possible just as the laws of the universe say I don't get to snap my fingers and have badgers fly out my butt. and yet through clever application I can build a device that crams them up there and pushes them out when my fingers snap. I use that example exactly because it's shocking and ridiculous... and possible. our genetics are just raw materials from which we build an entirely new structure from.... a tree is not a house or a canoe or a park bench, but it can be made into those things. similarly a hammer may be made for building, but hand one to our nearest genetic cousin and I'll bet you money they use it to break things instead.

---

ETA: I think nobody realizes the importance of instinctual behavior in human social interactions better than somebody who lacks a great deal of those social instincts that most people take for granted and expect to see in others. [...]

---

unfortunately all too well. thankfully mild enough that my learned behaviors are able to mask most of the difference, and as a bonus give me tools to note the differences in others.

 

 

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

I'm not suggesting that less aggressive cultures are somehow "better" than the more aggressive ones. As far as technological and economic success goes, the more aggressive cultures have clearly faired better and achieved a lot more.

---

 

Ishy, you've missed the point of my comment. 

There are no "less aggressive" or "more aggressive" cultures.   There only more and less successful ones.   All cultures, around the globe throughout human history, have displayed aggressiveness, including raiding, attacking, warring, and conquering.  

The reason that some cultures were more successful in these endeavors, particularly in recent world history, is not because of some innate aggressive nature that overpowered less aggressive people's.    The reason is due to technology and the etiology of diseases on a virgin population.  Guns, germs, steel, transportation, technology.   That's it.  Period.   

 

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

....the more aggressive cultures have clearly faired better and achieved a lot more. I mean, more peaceful or not, I wouldn't want to live in a Bushman tribe. I'm glad that the ongoing conquering efforts of my ancestors have led to huge nations and a great deal of cultural and technological exchange, even though our more aggressive traits can lead to social problems in times of peace.

---

 

You just don't get it.  Bushman tribes are not less aggressive than the Europeans that overran them.   The Bushmen just didn't have the technology to be able to fight back successfully.   

 

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

Hmmm, I think many people are missing the point of the article, which may be an interesting phenomena in itself.

---

 

I didn't miss the point.  The author of the article is clearly trying to promote alcohol as this harmless past-time that people should enjoy and not worry about.   Nothing to worry about, it's just "our" culture that is at fault.   That's her point.  

Then she states things that are not factual and makes up hypothetical situations to support her stance.

BTW, did you read through the comments below that article?   Did you happen to click on any of the links that some of the commenter's posted?   Kate Fox is not exactly a neutral party regarding the alcohol industry. 

http://www.bmj.com/content/319/7211/716.1.full

When analyzing anything, especially when it's something that sounds counter-intuitive, it helpful to use the old "follow-the-money" angle. 

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Void Singer wrote:

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

Would you disagree that all neural behavior is coded into the DNA of our neurons? How could these cells do anything that is not part of their DNA?

---

 you continue to surprise me, I really did not expect a reductionist argument. but ok, I'll play along. are the instructions for neural behavior of a cell different between say, a mouse, and an elephant? nope. so what is different? both the way they are put together, and the environment they inhabit. The connections that they form and the interactions between them determine a different pattern, even though they have the same building blocks.

 

---

The genes that control the structural development of the brain are obviously quite different in humans, mice and elephants. We don't *learn* to grow those large frontal lobes.

Even the parts of our brains that appear to be fairly similar in all mammals behave differently in each mammalian species. Our amygdalas respond to different threat signals, the information that our olfactory neurons send to our limbic systems differs in quality and is interpreted differently (for a human, a mouse doesn't smells like kin, rival or potential mate), and so on.

What causes this different functionality if not genomic inter-species differences? Environmental influences can only shape our brains and behavior within the neural framework that is determined by our DNA.

 

---

Again, I'm not saying that all behavior is predetermined and that there is only one possible outcome for each genetic phenotype. But ultimately, all developmental outcomes have their basis in our genome, and you can't teach a human to be a platypus.

---

well good, at least we haven't lost you entirely to predetermination (that way lies madness), but you still seem to believe that the building material somehow decides what it will be used for. I'll agree that it can limit it from some applications, for instance a wooden plank, makes a very poor net. so while you can't teach a human to change it's form and be a platypus, you can teach one to

act

like a platypus, just like you can use a plank to swat fish out of water.

 

---

I've tried to explain that there is no genetic predetermination, because many of our coding genes act like rows of dip switches rather than having fixed states. Gene-environment interaction means exactly that very little is set in stone and almost all human development is shaped by the environment, but at same time the environment can only interact with existing genetic information (or with an existing neural framework that has developed as a result of genetic information).

And no, I don't think that you could teach a human to act like a platypus. That would include living happily in a platypus habitat, fearing things that pose a threat to a platypus, craving a platypus diet and digesting it effectively, being sexually attracted to platypuses (platypii?), and so on. At best, a human could do a poor imitation of platypus behavior as s/he perceives it from an anthropocentric point of view. Which is of course quite a feat already, and only made possible by our immensely complex brains (which we grow because our DNA codes for their development).

 

---

As for instinctual behavior: What do you think instincts are? Most people assume that this term refers to a fixed behavioral program, but we only see that in the most primitive organisms. If you smell rotten meat and start to retch, that's instinct. If you think that a hot casserole smells great, that's instinct too. Fear? Instinct. Joy and pleasure? Instinct. Sexual attraction? Instinct. Stress reactions? Instinct. Love and friendship? Instinct. The urge to pee? Instinct. Suppressing that urge because you're in a social setting where it would be frowned upon if you stood up and pulled down your pants? Again, instinct.

---

I'm so glad you included that last one. it gives me three examples of learned behavior contrary to genetic predisposition. Not doing something because others frown up it is entirely learned, and entirely contextual. if you didn't know about, or weren't aware of it being frowned upon in that group, you'd have no reason not to, and probably would go right ahead and do it. Here's another, drawn from culture clash and personal experience... the smell of kimchi, which is regarded by many to smell "rotten", is regarded as pleasing by cultures that regularly eat it. You might argue that those people are genetically disposed to associate that smell differently, right? except that does not explain how their children when raised on a different diet (such as a few second gen immigrant friends of mine) can't stand it. This is easily explained by learned experience though. It also explains my hatred of the smell of bubblegum, which makes me nauseous, because I happened to have some during my childhood when I was deathly ill.

And as a final example there is a particular culture in which spitting on someone is a form of polite greeting... there isn't any biological basis for the behavior, it's just what they're taught one should do. the same can be said of crossing oneself and spitting when something "evil" is mentioned by name. the trigger may be fear (a base instinct) but the behavior itself has no biological origin, and is entirely learned and passed on by social conditioning.

 

---

I included my "full bladder" example to show that one instinct can override another. One could also mention a mother that overcomes her aversion to human feces when she changes the diapers of her infant, because the wellbeing of her offspring has priority over everything else, including her own infection risk and even her own survival.

Your example of food with a rotten smell falls into the same category, imho. It was probably hunger that topped the aversion to this kind of smell at some point. Humans would rather eat something that smells disgusting than starve to death. And once one human individual had added kimchi to his or her diet, others adopted it too.

This kind of behavior can be observed in many primates. They watch a fellow ape or monkey eat an unfamiliar kind of food, see that he doesn't fall ill, and decide to also give it a try. "Monkey see, monkey do" is just another instinct. 

As for strange greeting rituals, genetic differences between geographically distinct human populations lead to different modes of socio-cultural behavior through gene-culture co-evolution. It was my point all along that culture is a form of genetic expression. While you and I could learn to imitate this greeting ritual, we would probably never feel good about being spat at.

In the same way, the people in your example might be disgusted by the custom of shaking hands, seeing that it involves touching the bare skin of a stranger (I don't feel very good about this custom myself and avoid it whenever possible. That's phenotypic variation for you. If neurotic aspies like myself became the prevalent phenotype, our culture would see a great many changes). 

 

---

Our entire complex social behavior is built on instinct. Contrary to popular belief, instincts don't force an animal to do anything, they are merely strong urges, fears, preferences and aversions. And of course there are many possible instinctual outcomes coded into our neural structure, which ethologists, neurologists and behavioral psychologists have dubbed prepared learning.

---

so close, and yet so far.....  YES built on, but NOT determined by. At best genetics only sets up a boundary limit of what's possible just as the laws of the universe say I don't get to snap my fingers and have badgers fly out my butt. and yet through clever application I can build a device that crams them up there and pushes them out when my fingers snap. I use that example exactly because it's shocking and ridiculous... and

possible

. our genetics are just raw materials from which we build an entirely new structure from.... a tree is not a house or a canoe or a park bench, but it can be made into those things. similarly a hammer may be made for building, but hand one to our nearest genetic cousin and I'll bet you money they use it to break things instead.

 

---

So you agree that behavior is *built on* genetics? Earlier in this discussion, you disagreed with my statement that all behavior ultimately has a genetic *basis*, which is basically the same. I agree 100% with your statement that "genetics only sets up a boundary limit of what's possible". That was exactly my point. 

You can build a great many things out of legos, but you are limited by their shape and the number of available pieces. The end result can always be broken down into lego bricks, and there is nothing in it that is not made of legos. You've simply arranged existing building blocks in an interesting new pattern.  

 

Of course that doesn't mean that our genetic lego bricks are not continuously adapting and changing. There is another false notion that is very common (and considered politically correct), namely that humans have only evolved up to a certain point in ancient history. Our later technological and cultural development is supposed to be nothing but a learning process. But human evolution has never stopped. It's true that we haven't seen many morphological changes in recent millennia (because they were not necessary), but I'm willing to bet my right arm that our brains are quite a bit different from, say, a Cro-Magnon brain, and even from the brain of a medieval human specimen.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

I'm not suggesting that less aggressive cultures are somehow "better" than the more aggressive ones. As far as technological and economic success goes, the more aggressive cultures have clearly faired better and achieved a lot more.

---

 

Ishy, you've missed the point of my comment. 

There are no "less aggressive" or "more aggressive" cultures.   There only more and less

successful

ones.   All cultures, around the globe throughout human history, have displayed aggressiveness, including raiding, attacking, warring, and conquering.  

---

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that point. There definitely are more and less aggressive human individuals. There are also more and less aggressive genetic phenotypes, the behavior of which can of course be altered by their environment within the limits of their genetic makeup (you can turn a pitbull into a lapdog, but that doesn't change the fact that he is more likely to respond to environmental factors that trigger aggressive behavior than a poodle. Pitbulls have, after all, been bred for aggressive behavior, and so have human populations that have evolved in environments with constant inter-tribal warfare and blood feuds. Which applies to most human populations). 

Depending on the prevalence of more or less aggressive phenotypes within a culture, the culture as a whole will act more or less aggressive and have more or less violent customs (think of cultural aspects like corporal punishment). Again, that is not a value judgement. It just is. All extant human cultures are successful in their relative environment, which is why they are still around, and the reason that they are successful is because they behave the way they do (of course they might be even more successful if they behaved differently, but nature only selects for "good enough").

 

---

The reason that some cultures were more successful in these endeavors, particularly in recent world history, is not because of some innate aggressive nature that overpowered less aggressive people's.    The reason is due to technology and the etiology of diseases on a virgin population.  Guns, germs, steel, transportation, technology.   That's it.  Period. 

---

It seems we keep missing each other's points. You seem to want to defend European imperialism, which is not necessary because I'm not judging it (although I can see that my original post might have come across as if I did). 

 

---

You just don't get it.  Bushman tribes are not less aggressive than the Europeans that overran them.   The Bushmen just didn't have the technology to be able to fight back successfully.    

---

I was talking about inter-tribal warfare. There was and is little to no warfare between different Bushman tribes, and also little to no violence within a single tribe. That makes them quite different from, say, Amazonian Indians, who very often wage war on their neighbors (and that without having any kind of technological superiority over them. That has never been a precondition for inter-tribal aggressivity and warfare, it only affects the outcome). 

[Maryanne Solo]

And what of those who disregard scientific fact & for whatever spiritual reason, choose partners, being close relatives, whereby permanent genetic damage is the result?

Will this behaviour lead to genetic screening as the human race hurtles forward or has this type of belief already bought the advocates of this process their ticket to extinction?

[Deltango Vale]

"I personally think it's naive to claim that we can alter human behavior at will by means of education."

--------------------------------------------------

I think everyone would agree that the hard-nature and hard-nurture positions are equally untenable. Perhaps where you and I differ would be over the effectiveness of propaganda. I think it would be hard to deny that a government-sponsored campaign of propaganda is ineffective in shaping the beliefs, attitudes and behavior of the population. I think it would also be hard to deny that religious proselytizers, without recourse to physical force, are ineffective in spreading their beliefs. History seems to suggest that culture is very responsive to rhetoric. Paul, Augustine and Calvin were very influential men. Our old friends Goebbels and Harry J. Anslinger knew a trick or two as well.

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

 

Yes, that was sort of where I was going with my comment, which was offered mostly in jest. Almost everyone agrees that observable characteristics are a combination of environmental influence and genetic makeup.

---

But only because environmental influence actively alters (the functionality of our existing) genetic makeup and neural structure.

 

---

Almost nobody, it seems, agrees on exactly how much of each is involved in any particular case.

---

There is no "how much of each"

It's gene-environment interaction all the way down.

 

 

 

 

---

Took me a while to catch up. I've read everything you've written in this thread (yes, I know, I'm a geek: so are the rest of us). When I was younger I would have been in almost total agreement with your outlook; I no longer share it. I'm going to quote something you said to someone else here:

As for sexual attitudes: In countries with a very relaxed attitude towards matters of sexuality, you will still find a phenotypic minority of people who, despite having been brought up in a very open-minded and tolerant environment, are reluctant to talk about sexuality, don't feel comfortable in revealing clothes and wear concealing outfits even during the summer months, are monogamous to a fault, and hold on to very conservative moral views.

Why is there any reason to insist the person who does not share the sexual freedom is genetically different from the ones who do? Could he not have learned that attitude from his father or mother, who while contributing to his genetic makeup also contributed to his upbringing? Maybe his father had a teacher from another culture upon whom he doted and from whom he 'learned' how to behave.  Nobody can BE something their genes don't allow. How they BEHAVE is influenced by but not determined by their genetic makeup.

Deltango's OP dealt, in my opinion, with behavior that is primarily 'learned'; in your and in other respondent's opinions (I think) that behavior is entirely genetic. I have a pet question having to do with genetics, one for which I've never found a real answer. I think I might start a thread just on that question; that would let the people that know genetics and biology weigh in without derailing Del's thread.

[Void Singer]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

I've tried to explain that there is no genetic predetermination, because many of our coding genes act like rows of dip switches rather than having fixed states. Gene-environment interaction means exactly that very little is set in stone and

almost all human development is shaped by the environment

, but at same time the environment can only interact with existing genetic information (or with an existing neural framework that has developed as a result of genetic information).

---

 was that a warm spot?.

---

I included my "full bladder" example to show that one instinct can override another. [...]

---

nope colder... learned behaviors are not instinctual, it's exactly why we differentiate between the two

---

Your example of food with a rotten smell falls into the same category, imho. It was probably hunger that topped the aversion to this kind of smell at some point. Humans would rather eat something that smells disgusting than starve to death. And once one human individual had added kimchi to his or her diet, others adopted it too.

---

Freezing.... starvation may explain a single instance, but only for the starving person. It does not explain why people that are not starving would continue or start to eat it despite their reaction, nor why direct offspring not raised to it would spontaneously and universally revert.

---

As for strange greeting rituals, genetic differences between geographically distinct human populations lead to different modes of socio-cultural behavior through gene-culture co-evolution. It was my point all along that culture is a form of genetic expression. While you and I could learn to imitate this greeting ritual, we would probably never feel good about being spat at.

---

I think we've hit permafrost.... remove a child from either culture, raise it in the other, and they display the behavior of the culture they were raised in, not the cultural behavior of their forebears; a sign with absolute clarity that genetics are NOT responsible for the behavior in question, but rather that social conditioning was.

---

So you agree that behavior is *built on* genetics? Earlier in this discussion, you disagreed with my statement that all behavior ultimately has a genetic *basis*, which is basically the same. I agree 100% with your statement that "genetics only sets up a boundary limit of what's possible". That was exactly my point.

---

aaaand zero kelvin... I honestly wanted to avoid the whole Modus Tollens argument because it's long and skirts close to fallacy, but I'm forced to it I see. So lets take your same argument, and reduce it to it's core value, that finished product is recognizable from it's starting point and building blocks... and apply it atomic structure. now by your reasoning, the way that an atom can be put together, and how each atom can interacts with another should give us the range of possible genetic structures, and thereby in furtherance of our ultimate goal, the social behavior and customs of humans. Anyone see the problem here in predicting the range of social behavior from the number of protons, neutron and electrons? how about doing it in a non-deterministic fashion? which particular count of each evolves to create the sound of crickets chirping in response to these three questions? (the previous question is only semi rhetorical).

for fun, lets avoid the question of determinism, so that we can move back up to the genetic level by making it an arbitrary dividing point. but even arbitrary division have to same some reasoning (and this is where our avoidance of determinism comes in), and let the scale division points be where a majority of shared base traits, that nevertheless result in a whole greater than the sum of it's parts (not entirely predictable from it's constituents), we could even add the rule that it should be able to manipulate it's own base parts. after all we are trying to usefully measure effects at a given level, so we need rules. Up we shoot several levels landing in genetics. yay!

on the way we passed chemistry at the very least, but who cares about that. but up in the distance, what's that? it's a fully formed critter, altering it's dna and it's chemisty through successive generations by figuring out what it should and shouldn't eat and when it should reproduce... ok, throw another level on the pile. oops, hey, this one learned to talk and now it's spreading information outside of the gene pool, and it's using that to modify not only its' environment but itself in the process... there goes another level.... and finally it building structures completely based on the information it's passed on by modification of it's environment, and hey that's affecting it's lower level counterparts too...wow, it's society.

now again I ask, show me a way to get up to the level of genetics from the starting point of subatomic particles, only this time, show me with rules that necessitate stopping there, yet still make it a useful predictor of individual human behavior across the whole range of human experience. anyone that can do that could walk away with a nobel prize.

[JeanneAnne]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

... I think I might start a thread... that would let the people that know genetics and biology weigh in...

---

Would be a waste or time Dillon, because 1.) very few ppl who actually know genetics & biology read these fora, & 2.) the few who do don't care to waste their time.

Jeanne

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

"I personally think it's naive to claim that we can alter human behavior at will by means of education."

--------------------------------------------------

I think everyone would agree that the hard-nature and hard-nurture positions are equally untenable. Perhaps where you and I differ would be over the effectiveness of propaganda. I think it would be hard to deny that a government-sponsored campaign of propaganda is ineffective in shaping the beliefs, attitudes and behavior of the population. I think it would also be hard to deny that religious proselytizers, without recourse to physical force, are ineffective in spreading their beliefs. History seems to suggest that culture is very responsive to rhetoric. Paul, Augustine and Calvin were very influential men. Our old friends Goebbels and Harry J. Anslinger knew a trick or two as well.

---

Of course propaganda can affect behavior, seeing that it often (perhaps always) appeals to people's fears. That includes religious propaganda. Especially the Abrahamic brand of religion plays heavily on fear. We are much more inclined to believe a claim of a fellow human being without any critical examination if this person warns us of something dangerous, which goes to show that instincts can easily override what passes as rational thought.

Paul threatened with eternal suffering and damnation. Anslinger turned a harmless plant into a grave threat in the minds of the public, and Goebbels did the same with a minority group. The latter is a precondition for organized aggression btw. Before a war, the enemy needs to be dehumanized in the public perception, a process that anthropologists have dubbed pseudospeciation.

A prime example for both political propaganda and pre-war pseudospeciation took place before the first Gulf War. A refugee Kuwaiti nurse testified before the U.S. Congress about an incident that had supposedly occured in her hospital in Kuwait City. She told that Iraqi troops, in the process of plundering the hospital, took more than 300 babies out of incubators in order to ship the incubators to Iraq. This was covered in every major newspaper, and the American public came to the conclusion that the Iraqi people must be some kind of inhuman monsters.

At the time of the vote authorizing the Gulf war, which passed by five votes, seven senators cited this incident as the reason for their pro-war vote. A few months later, it turned out that this supposed refugee Kuwaiti nurse was in fact not a nurse, but the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. The hospital story had been concocted by a P.R. firm in Washington in cooperation with the U.S. government. The girl was instructed to lie before the congress, and congress fell for it. The American public too, judging by their 92% approval rate for the Gulf war. But unlike the made-up propaganda story, the news that this gruesome event had never occured were buried in the back pages of the newspapers.

Luckily, there is also the exact opposite of pseudospeciation, which is known as pseudokinship. We are probably the only mammals that don't distinguish between kin and non-kin based on smell, but rather based on shared beliefs and values. Large-scale social structures such as nations would be impossible without this uniquely human trait, which is especially important for an organized military structure. Establishing pseudokinship is a vital part of basic military training ("every soldier is your brother").

This opposite of divisive propaganda also takes place after a war. When a nation reaches some sort of peace with a former enemy, the news are often flooded with articles about how these people are just like the folks next door, and all they really want is democracy and peace and blue jeans and fast food Alas, in case of the Iraqi people, the pseudokinship didn't last long. Not long after they had been turned into infant killers in the public perception, the propaganda machine made them into terrorists and used them as a scapegoat for 9/11.

But I'm getting far off topic here, so I'd better stop now One more thing about religion: Isn't it interesting how much Christianity has changed over time, and how differently it evolves in different cultures (for example the Jamaican Rastafari movement)? It's a religion that has something for everyone and can justify pretty much anything from altruism and charity to violence and slavery, which explains its enormous success. People don't really adopt this religion, they rather modify it according to their cultural needs. Which again serves to show that there is something about different human populations that causes them to prefer and evolve different cultural traits.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Maryanne Solo wrote:

And what of those who disregard scientific fact & for whatever spiritual reason, choose partners, being close relatives, whereby permanent genetic damage is the result?

Will this behaviour lead to genetic screening as the human race hurtles forward or has this type of belief already bought the advocates of this process their ticket to extinction?

---

I don't think anybody wants forced genetic screening. Nature handles the natural selection part quite well, so let's just sit back and see which traits happen to be successful. The result might be quite counter-intuitive.

As an atheist, I hate to admit it, but religious fundamentalist groups with rather odd beliefs and weird behavioral practices are often vastly more successful from a reproductive point of view than what I tend to think of as rational people. Just look at the negative birth rates in most Western countries. The greater religiosity in the USA (and, as a result, the strong opposition to sex education and abortion and the greater occurence of teenage pregnancy) might be one of the reasons that the U.S. still maintains a positive birth rate.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

You continue to misinterpret my position as genetic determinism. Gene-environment interaction is the opposite of determinism. The fact that environmental influences enable or disable parts of our DNA means that the environment is a much better predictor of human behavior and development than the genome of a person. But once again, the environment can only work with what is already there. So what you see as a contradiction is in fact one and the same point of view.

Anyway, sorry that I don't reply to your points in more detail, but it's getting late here and frankly, I'm sick and tired of the bitchy snide comments from people like Syo and "Gene"Anne. This forum used to be a place where it was possible to engage in a polite and civilized debate, probably the only place of this kind in the SL forum landscape. Apparently, that is no longer the case.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

---

Maryanne Solo wrote:

And what of those who disregard scientific fact & for whatever spiritual reason, choose partners, being close relatives, whereby permanent genetic damage is the result?

Will this behaviour lead to genetic screening as the human race hurtles forward or has this type of belief already bought the advocates of this process their ticket to extinction?

---

I don't think anybody wants forced genetic screening. Nature handles the natural selection part quite well, so let's just sit back and see which traits happen to be successful. The result might be quite counter-intuitive.

As an atheist, I hate to admit it, but religious fundamentalist groups with rather odd beliefs and weird behavioral practices are often vastly more successful from a reproductive point of view than what I tend to think of as rational people. Just look at the negative birth rates in most Western countries. The greater religiosity in the USA (and, as a result, the strong opposition to sex education and abortion and the greater occurence of teenage pregnancy) might be one of the reasons that the U.S. still maintains a positive birth rate.

---

Ishy, we discussed this some weeks ago, when I wondered if we weren't selecting for something we (society) wanted, but nature saw it differenty. I asked if there was a term for this and Void suggested "social bias". I think that applies only to what we think we're selecting for. As you've observed, nature doesn't give a damn what we think. As we select for "intelligence" by rewarding it with money, we get a lower birth rate (because rich adults don't need kids to care for them in their old age, nor do they lose the ones they have to disease).

Is there a term for the unintended selection that results from our intended selection? If the proper term really is social bias, then what's the term for our intended selection? Maybe it's "oops!"?

[Deltango Vale]

"But I'm getting far off topic here"

-----------------------------------------------------

Actually, I'd say you are spot on topic

While I remain unconvinced that human behavior is a primarily a function of genes, I agree with you about the tribal nature of mankind. Why do human beings tribalize so easily? Needless to say, there are countless explanations, but none of them, in my opinion, get to the deeper questions of intelligence, emotions and the link between them.



[Ceka Cianci]

i'm not sure how this will fit in here or not but maybe  it will hehehehe..

my father had a work partner when we lived up in chicago..they did all kinnds of things back then..he was a heating man and also electrician and plumber and they did lots of different jobs for this one comapny..

this man my father worked with..ended up being someone that would blow most of his check on cocaine and partying all his money away every week..my father was always mad at him  about never having money for lunches and things like that during the week and i would guess that he had this problem also..

they were always at the house getting something for a job they were working on..so i kind of knew him  but never really knew all this stuff about him..

one day this man was up in an attic doing some electrical work..i guess he was  trying to cut into electrical lines so they could put in another or something like that..

my father told me he had cut into this one line and found out the wire colors were not the ones he was looking for..

so instead of going down to turn off the breaker for those wires..he ended up laying over  this conduit and started to cut into the next line..as he did the ones he was laying were moving and the conduit with is made of metal sheered the wires and started to electricute him..

my father was down stairs.. all of a sudden the power went out in the whole house..so he ran up and looked at the box and saw that the main breaker had blown or switched off..

he ran to the attic to see this man laying face down in insulation...

 

well i'll save the whole thing about how they got him out of the attic to get to my point that  really made me look at how fragile we are..

the man was on there so long that his ears were almost red..which means a pretty good amount of time..and he still lived..

but what happened to him was that it had erased  his long term memory..

he forgot just about everything..

all his experience in life and anyone he knew...

i guess when they revived him at the hospital he was  like waking up a new born baby but full grown and didn't forget what fear was...

he freaked out so much that they said he went into the fetal position and did not recognize anything ore anyone but his mother..

he didn't know who he was or what a doctor was or what a hospital was...

anyways a couple of weeks later my father and me were out doing some things and he decided to stop in and see how he was doing..

it was one of the strangest things  i had ever experienced with another human..

he was always really nice to me when they would stop at the house and eat and get tools and stuff for work..

he totally had changed..he had this leery look when he looked at me like i was gonna steal something or had to make sure he kept an eye on me at first..

he talked really different as well..like he didn't use the filler words..  like we would say..i'm going to go to the store ..i'll be back in a few minutes..

he would say it like this..i go store..i come back soon...

i guess his whole personality had changed..my dad said he uused to be somewhat of a quiet type as far as how he would be around people and that now he had turned into someone direct and confrontational..and that he didn't know what cocaine was..but the people that he owed money to..which was a couple thousand dollars i guess..he was after them thinking they owed him money..

he didn't remember me or my father who he worked with constantly every day..he didn't know how to look for cars before crossing the street or what a car was or that it moving at him and hitting him would kill him..

all he knew was what people were telling him..

and the nurse said that when something like this happenes that their whole personality can change to the oposite that they were beforehand,.

all your values and beliefs and everything you were taught since birth was erased pretty much..

one thing that she also said was that his learning would be faster so he could learn things again faster than  a child..

 

this thread just kind of had me remembering this man and what happened and  it's something that always comes back to me and has me thinking what it must have been like to have your slate cleaned like that..like formatting  a hard drive..

all that room for retention and only instincts to guide you..that and the ones that will be teaching you everything else..

i think thats why people may become oposite after things like this..

because they learn faster and don't have all that time put into being raised into what someone wants them to be..

imagine everythign being brand new again and the whole world  all the little things are amazing again..anf being full grown to be able to interact with them more than when you were little..

there is somethign neat about it as far as that goes..but also just a clean slate..all that manipulatuion that teachers and everyone did to you growing up is all gone..

i mean not even knowing what a lie is or what a lie is for..what greed is or any of that stuff..

i never saw him again..i guess his family took him to tennessee someplace..i think my father may know..but he never really talks about  him..i don't really talk about this aroudn him..i think he may have some built up guilt over it or something ..he would shut down a conversation if it started up about it..

i just wonder how he is doing nowdays..it would be interesting to see how he turned out since then..

 

anyways..just thought i would toss this in here..it's still a short kind of version..things come back to me about all that and i would keep adding and having to edit to fill a part in that i forgot about..

so i'll just leave it at this..maybe it's usefull and maybe it's not..i just thought it was interesting as  it gets seeign something liek that in first person is all..

i'll probably be editing for typoes like always as well lol

have a good sunday or whatever day it is by you =)

 

[Deltango Vale]

Fascinating story! The human mind is very strange indeed.

http://www.oliversacks.com/books/man-who-mistook-his-wife/

http://www.ted.com/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind.html

[RudolphUkka]

Del, I am 300 pages into Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" (200 more to go, so I can't be absolutely sure) and I think that he offers answers to the questions you are asking.

***

They may not be all the right answers, as he would be the first to admit, but they make sense as far as they go..

***

Rudi

***

 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

Fascinating story! The human mind is very strange indeed.

http://www.oliversacks.com/books/man-who-mistook-his-wife/



http://www.ted.com/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind.html



---

i think it was a fascinating experience and one that really helps me a lot..

it really taught me that if something becomes confusing..just break it down to the basics and work from there to see why it was made confusing..

clear all the clutter away and things become a bit clearer..

what was the root and when did it hit the surface and start to brance into all these branches of different directions..

thats usually where most honest answers are found..

 

i think things are made complicated for a reason..to distract and cause confusion..there are more ways than one to skin a cat..it can take a few minutes or someone can take hours doing it..

just depends on how much we want to have accomplished that day is all..

like at work..when someone is getting trained..these ladies training them..i noticed some of them really try to make it sound like it's the hardest job in the world...lol

so the trainees..they tend to really be careful with each step and take forever to getting on their own..

myself when i train someone i try to make the points clear and easy and to where anyone can understand them..i don't want someone to follow me around with a zillion questions for weeks on end..i want them doing thier job so i can get back to mine as soon as possible..

one thing i really learned from that whole thing was that there sure is a lot of bullcrap we get fed everyday...

the trick is finding the food for thought and pushing the bullcrap to the side hehehehhee