A Most Interesting Conversation

[Norsemaiden]

There are a lot of people who know that it is true what Speed says about genetics determining everything about us, yet they don't want other people to know this. People who have this knowledge will have an advantage over those who don't know it. These ideas would have become mainstream decades ago were it not for events surrounding WWII.
Such fundamental knowledge cannot be suppressed forever,however,and it seems to be an inevitability that the the truth will break out anytime soon.
Political correctness was invented to try to suppress these ideas. Satanism is far more acceptable to the establlishment and to the sheep-like majority than genetic determinism.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

There are a lot of people who know that it is true what Speed says about genetics determining everything about us, yet they don't want other people to know this.

Where is the proof that this is true? Its merely a hypothesis, that has some strong evidence but is far from being a proven fact.

People who have this knowledge will have an advantage over those who don't know it. These ideas would have become mainstream decades ago were it not for events surrounding WWII.
Such fundamental knowledge cannot be suppressed forever,however,and it seems to be an inevitability that the the truth will break out anytime soon.
Political correctness was invented to try to suppress these ideas. Satanism is far more acceptable to the establlishment and to the sheep-like majority than genetic determinism.

You're assuming that if one accepts these facts they must interperate them in a perticular fashion. For example how would we decide which genetic traits were most advantagous and which should be encourged (presumably this would be the case if eugenics came into play...)? Should those with good hand eye coordiation be selected over those with strong math skills or visa versa? Or perhaps we would still decide many different types are needed, rendering the new discoveries null. Facts are facts, but that doesn't mean they can only be interprated in one fashion. The facts could be melded to fit liberalism, satanism, facism, christainity etc. If you need further proof of this just look at all the different arguments that have been derrived from the facts of natural selection. Some have used its drive towards complexity as proof of Gods order while others argue it shows god to be obsolete. My point is that to use scientific facts to make sociological moves inherently involves non-scientific steps. Such steps are not neccasary to take and furthermore can be taken to fit many many differerent idealogical agendas.

 

[speed]

There are a lot of people who know that it is true what Speed says about genetics determining everything about us, yet they don't want other people to know this. People who have this knowledge will have an advantage over those who don't know it. These ideas would have become mainstream decades ago were it not for events surrounding WWII.
Such fundamental knowledge cannot be suppressed forever,however,and it seems to be an inevitability that the the truth will break out anytime soon.
Political correctness was invented to try to suppress these ideas. Satanism is far more acceptable to the establlishment and to the sheep-like majority than genetic determinism.

Well I cant comment on that, but I have read a few books on genetics and neuropsychiatry that suggest that our lives are more predetermined than we originally thought. And there have been a number of studies that prove genetics influence behaviors such as risk taking. Everything from our sexual orientation, to whether we will be fat, have heart disease, neurological disorders; all of these are genetic.

Frankly it kinda of scares the hell out of me, because, well, just what the hell will happen in the future? We already have a pretty homogenous unoriginal culture as it is--if given the choice genetically, where will all the eccentrics, pessimists, and humanistic types go? I'd never be born.

 

[Cythraul]

Supposing the amount of effort someone is willing to put into maths is also primarily genetics-derived, though? Can a person then be considered capable of working their ass off over something that they are genetically inclined to avoid pursuing? Similarly, can someone who is genetically inclined to pursue maths whole-heartedly despite initially lacking mathematical skills be considered "not genetically predisposed to be good at maths"?

C'mon, fella. That's completely ad hoc. I could be genetically predisposed to not want to try hard at math, as ridiculous as that seems, and still do the complete opposite. Of course you'll say "Oh but then you were genetically predisposed to try hard at math all along." That's not scientific at all. You need to show that there is a gene or a set of genes that can predispose one to not give a flying fuck about math. If someone with this kind of predisposition then turns around and works their ass off on math then the theory that 'genetic predisposition = destiny' is thereby falsified.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Eugenics is not a good idea because humans are so fallible. The kind of people created may be according to fashion.
The important thing with realising the importance of your genes is that if you have qualities that you value about yourself , the only way to preserve that would be to have a good number of children with someone from your own genepool. That way nature can decide if your kind will have a future or not.
The next stage in human evolution would probably be people who realise this and choose themselves out as a type, knowing that there are a lot of people who could never be like them.
I'm hoping that these would be very intelligent, healthy people who respect the environment and can save the planet from the doom it faces at the moment.
I say that the establishment doesn't like this because the people in power are exploiting the planet and lying to anyone just for their own personal enrichment. They don't want a lot of questioning, rebelllious, intelligent people, they want slaves who are easily controlled and sick people who feel that they could not survive without medecine and have no extended family so they will be weak. Such people are easily controlled.:hotjump:

 

[crimsonfloyd]

The important thing with realising the importance of your genes is that if you have qualities that you value about yourself , the only way to preserve that would be to have a good number of children with someone from your own genepool. That way nature can decide if your kind will have a future or not.
The next stage in human evolution would probably be people who realise this and choose themselves out as a type, knowing that there are a lot of people who could never be like them.
I'm hoping that these would be very intelligent, healthy people who respect the environment and can save the planet from the doom it faces at the moment.

So you want to respect the environment and have hella kids? In todays world thats pretty contradictory. Also predicting the future of human evolution is foolish because we never know what will be advantagous in the environment of the future. Oh and one more thing, read Brian Goodwin's critiques of "selfish gene" theories, you'll notice the concept has some disturbing similarties to the ideals and themes of Christainity...

 

[Norsemaiden]

When you go extinct, your ideals die with you. That might be a pity if your ideals are good. Is it so wrong to say that? I see you can tell I'm a fan of Richard Dawkins! I know about the attempts to debunk the selfish gene "theory" as well, but they are flawed.

 

[no country for old wainds]

C'mon, fella. That's completely ad hoc. I could be genetically predisposed to not want to try hard at math, as ridiculous as that seems, and still do the complete opposite. Of course you'll say "Oh but then you were genetically predisposed to try hard at math all along." That's not scientific at all. You need to show that there is a gene or a set of genes that can predispose one to not give a flying fuck about math. If someone with this kind of predisposition then turns around and works their ass off on math then the theory that 'genetic predisposition = destiny' is thereby falsified.

Don't get all clever on me, it was a speculative question rather than a claim. It recognisably can't be proven whether true or not.

 

[MasterOLightning]

I can never watch Charlie Rose. Do you think maybe he could get a backdrop or something for his set? That black background puts me to sleep. Plus, the show's on pretty late where I am.

Still, sounds like some interesting stuff.

 

[speed]

I can never watch Charlie Rose. Do you think maybe he could get a backdrop or something for his set? That black background puts me to sleep. Plus, the show's on pretty late where I am.

Still, sounds like some interesting stuff.

I find it relaxing to watch, provided he has a decent guest. Its always funny to watch actors, because they try to be so serious on his show, and only a few of them are interesting enough to not snicker at.

I was talking about this show to a few scientist friends of mine, who stated that these famous scientists are far too optimistic, and far too trusting in the powers of science.

Oh, it was on the news yesterday, that even ones predilection towards a sweet tooth, is genetically predetermined.

 

[derek]

It seems to me that scientists in the public eye are always blindly invested in proclaiming a purely scientific world view. Plus...they're telling us everything is genetically predetermined. I wonder if such predeterminacy will ever stand up in court?

 

[MasterOLightning]

Doesn't it seem likely though, that most preferences of any sort are genetically determined? Why do some people like coffee, and some like tea? "They just do" is not a viable answer. They must have some sort of positive sensory response towards either, and whether they do or not must be determined by genetics. Perhaps socialization is a factor in a place where tea drinking is a large part of the culture, but in a place where no socialization occurs, something must be causing the person to lean one way or another. We have choice in what beer or candy is our favorite, but I think it has to be our biology that tells us what choice to make, making us not so free after all.

I'm sure the same sort of thing applies to music. I think it's reasonable to believe that that's genetically influenced. Of course, like our debate about math skills, environment might or might not outway genetic predispositions. I tend to think it does.

 

[NietjeTuck]

If our genetic make-up determines what we will be like, surely our parents will have a part to play. It's odd. My father is a construction worker (Studying a degree in Network Engineering right now) and my mother is a receptionist for the NHS. However, I dislike Maths (Which site managers and Engineers need to be excellent at) and I dislike the Sciences. My passions are Literature, Philosophy, Politics and History. None of my parents, nor grandparents share interests in these, not distinct enough to pass on the passions at least.

So are they suggesting that our DNA is completely independant in its construct? That nothing, be it during our lives, or our parents DNA, affects who we become?

 

[derek]

Doesn't it seem likely though, that most preferences of any sort are genetically determined? Why do some people like coffee, and some like tea? "They just do" is not a viable answer. They must have some sort of positive sensory response towards either, and whether they do or not must be determined by genetics. Perhaps socialization is a factor in a place where tea drinking is a large part of the culture, but in a place where no socialization occurs, something must be causing the person to lean one way or another. We have choice in what beer or candy is our favorite, but I think it has to be our biology that tells us what choice to make, making us not so free after all.

I'm sure the same sort of thing applies to music. I think it's reasonable to believe that that's genetically influenced. Of course, like our debate about math skills, environment might or might not outway genetic predispositions. I tend to think it does.

Opposite example being tomatoes? I hated tomatoes as a kid, the taste texture EVERYTHING but now i love 'em. That cannot be a genetic predisposition, otherwise it couldnt change. So that would suggest its more social? That i like tomotoes now because i'm an adult, realise they are healthy and seem to have developed a taste for them not because of genetics. I dunno where i was going with this, but that thought sprung to mind when reading your post.

 

[derek]

If our genetic make-up determines what we will be like, surely our parents will have a part to play. It's odd. My father is a construction worker (Studying a degree in Network Engineering right now) and my mother is a receptionist for the NHS. However, I dislike Maths (Which site managers and Engineers need to be excellent at) and I dislike the Sciences. My passions are Literature, Philosophy, Politics and History. None of my parents, nor grandparents share interests in these, not distinct enough to pass on the passions at least.

So are they suggesting that our DNA is completely independant in its construct? That nothing, be it during our lives, or our parents DNA, affects who we become?

I'm still not convinced everything can be put down to genetics. I think people may have genetic predispositions to certain things but i'm not convinced that non-genetic means of stimulation cannot determine a person and who they are.

 

[infoterror]

I hated tomatoes as a kid, the taste texture EVERYTHING but now i love 'em.

This, I consider to be an example of the maturation process. Tomatoes f'n rock.

 

[speed]

I'm still not convinced everything can be put down to genetics. I think people may have genetic predispositions to certain things but i'm not convinced that non-genetic means of stimulation cannot determine a person and who they are.

Since I've been so interested in this underlying idea, ive done some reading, and discovered most 'experts' place genetics and environment at equal 50/50 levels--although genetics is gaining steam. Still, it seems environment does play a big part, as someone genetically predisposed to say violence, may, if they are surrounded by the proper environment, not trigger this violent gene.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Do you think maybe he could get a backdrop or something for his set? That black background puts me to sleep.

i know this is way off topic but...the blackness (in the background of charlie rose) is done on purpose it's to prevent you from getting distracted by the background and to help you pay attention to the sound instead of the visual except that it doesn't work very well when they show the show at night (11 pm here) because the blackness puts a lot of people to sleep it's not just you

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

It doesnt matter what kind of environment one is placed in, their genes determine who they are. They both acknowledged that yes family and culture do have a impact, but it is not nearly as big in determining the individual as previously thought ( they used the example of a poet: one born with a genetic predilection towards poetry will most likely be better if they were Irish and not a Eskimo due to culture influences; but they'd both still be poets). Hence, there is no equality, and no amount of education will make a violent man, less violent, or a person bad at math, any better. Thus, they both claimed that all of the social sciences, and pyschology are essentially wrong, and have devised erroneous theories and policies due to this belief in equality, environment etc. They foresee the brain to be totally understood sometime in this coming century, and for there to be a serious biological/psychological revolution

That is completely innacurate.

Even more fascinating is how they both thought many behaviors have been bred out--or have been largely reduced through natural selection. The one they talked about most is violence. They both state that in the last 20,000 years as we have had to live and work togewther in cities etc, those persons that were inherently violent were increasingly shunned and kicked out; not allowing them to breed any further.

Thus, here are two men, who have won about every award in the world, and one who maybe made the greatest scientific advances ever, both entirely upturning the ideas of free will, religion, environment, and the social sciences and psychology. Essentially politically, both conservative and liberal ideas as well.

I wanted to get everyone's reaction, as I know we discuss these topics all the time.

I disagree with just about everything he said that you paraphrased. I think it's the opposite in that environment and culture play much more of a part of who someone is that just genes.

 

[Blaphbee]

This is hilarious. Devy metal thinks that offering his cute little opinions actually matters in some significant way? Especially without offering any evidence to back it up?