Grace Life Church supporters tear down the fences
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (41)
sorted by:
The only place we really disagree is in the regard we hold evidence that behavior and culture are inflected by genetics.
Christianity isn't a Zionist plot. While I appreciate the baseline judeo-christian morality as best for the masses, there's an inherent weakness in it's universalism.
They are, minimally, and to a point which may be irrelevant compared to actual experience and conditioning.
Then our disagreement is one of degrees. Genetics have an undeniable correlation with antisocial behavior, and I believe the prevalence of antisocial behaviors have a profound effect on public trust, which heavily informs cultural norms. If one in 1000 are predisposed to severe antisocial behavior, the type of culture that they form will be massively different from the culture formed by one in 100 with antisocial behaviors.
But the degrees are far too significant to reduce to genetics in any useful way.
When local cultures are changing so aggressively in less than 100 years, and we know that sex-selection, diet, and up-bringing have dramatic individual results, it can't be argued that there's enough reason to recognize cultural differences based on genetics.
Genetics, like normal, can usually give you some upper and lower maximums, but the averages and means are not going to be determined by genetics. Yes, genetics can tell us that African runners are going to do well in the Olympics. It tells us almost nothing about the ability for black Americans to run on average beyond some broad potential.
In fact, I'd argue that cultural norms probably have a larger impact on genetics than vice versa. This is because if a culture promotes sex-selection by females of specific types of males that are chosen as optimal breeding partners, the likelihood that those sex-selections are going to lead to an effect in the populations general genetic make-up is going to be more important.
Let's pretend I'm some demi-god ruling over a tribe of humans. If we accept Male Variability Hypothesis and Female Sex Selection, I can use the environment to cultivate genetics. If I expose the tribe to dangerous predators, females may consistently choose stronger and aggressive men to breed with for protection and safety of family development. But, if I remove the predators and introduce lots of soil fertility and edible plants, the males that females will chose might be more inclined towards repetitive physical work and long-term planning like farmers. If I turn the area utterly inhospitable, the females may mate with males that are more geared towards risk taking and exploration in order to find a new home.
Genetically speaking, there is no difference between an environmental change that would introduce inhospitable climates and poor soil, and a Communist government that ruins agriculture and intentionally starves people. In fact, what kind of males would be optimal choices for females in such an environment. Females would respond to environmental changes in the form of selection, and males would respond to environmental changes by either dying or adapting (MVH). What if that environmental change killed certain men. Certain men dying from environmental stressors means that females would have to choose survivable mates. What if it wasn't predators or storms, but a bunch of Communists killing independent minded and aggressive men that spoke out against the system. Female sex selection choices would be altered by the environmental pressure all the same.
Whatever short-term genetic differences we might find, it would most likely be an outgrowth of those environmental stressors, eliminating certain behaviors and potential mates that are less survivable or beneficial.
This is why I have to bring up the East Germans. The 1 SD IQ difference of East & West Germans can't possibly come about because the East & West Germans developed such stark genetic differences in only 50 years. It has to be because of environmental pressures from tyranny & communism cultivating an environment utterly destructive to the kind of people who would need high IQ for social status and prosperity. On the other side of the wall, a freer modern society would have lots of use for high IQ individuals, which would cause them to be more likely to both develop their IQ (and not be stunted), and also promote their survival and offspring (females chose males with typically similar or high IQ in mate preference).
Effectively, the long-term evolutionary genetics of populations is never going to be effected by 50 years of communism, but the adaptation of a population to an environmental stressor should exist. The underlying long-term genetics might be basically the same, but the populations had to diverge due to environment.
Well, the same thing can apply to all other groups for identical reasons. There is a reason there was a massive upward shift in Jewish and White populations in the US. The domination of a welfare state in Black American communities might explain differences between them and both Whites & West Africans.
If you beat a dog, it becomes maladaptive. If you beat a dog, and all it's children, and all it's children's children, you get the Soviet's dog experiment.
That's the one where they took a group of dogs, separated them into two groups:
After 5 generations, the 2 groups of dogs literally don't even look the same.
The aggressive dogs are pathologically aggressive. Their always angry, barking, snaping at the trainers, and fighting with each other. They are leener, have darker fur, and are paranoid to engage in contact with humans.
The passive dogs are like adult puppies. They have longer hair, they are all lightly colored, they are curious, they are eager to be petted, they love contact with humans, and they basically never bite or growl.
Genetically, they're still the same group of dogs, but the observed differences, which are physically manifest, come from selective breeding toward behavior. There's no reason that human social systems couldn't incentivize humans to do the same thing.
Been awhile since this discussion, but I wanted to circle around back to this, since I'd forgotten something possibly relevant:
Do you think the Russian rape of East Germany could explain this difference? Not fully, of course, but at least partially? I mean, we can see this sort of divergence just during the rationing during the war in Britain, though not as stark. Environment of course plays a role, but the persistence after liberation and normalization would speak to genetic factors, and there were genetics introduced to E Germany that wasn't really seen in the Allied controlled partitions.
As to the dogs, they would generally be considered a different breed at that point, and each group would likely retain much of the epigenetic behavioral tendencies without the abusive/passive environmental stimuli, as long as you kept their breeding separate.
Curious, would you happen to know the name of the experiment? Sounds like interesting reading, and I'm just coming up with the 2 headed dog thing.