A Most Interesting Conversation

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

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.

has any one seen any of the dozen or so versions of "white man's burden" there's also atleast a dozen same plot movies with different names. the movie shows a world where the white/black inequalities are reversed. the whole point of the movie is that (according to the filmakers) is that genetics plays absolutely no part whatsoever in determining a person's behavior it's all environment according to most of the versions. i really liked the version where john travolta plays the minimum wage ghettoville white guy who kidnaps a rich preptown black guy in his attempt to get money to pay his rent and ends up getting himself killed by black racist cops in his attempt to save the life of the guy he kidnapped

on the other hand its been proven that there is a recessive gene that is called "the serial killer gene" that was found doubled up in the DNA of ALL the white American serial killers and has never been found at all in any black people ever

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

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?

Evidence? But, for what? My opinion on this topic that resides on a message board even though I've spent the last 4 years of my life getting a minor in Soliology? I don't have the time or patience to write what would be considered a diatribe by most reading this subject. As well, have you added anything to this discussion at all, other than that stupid, pointless post about my opinion? Surely not. So, just keep your mouth shut, thanks.

 

[speed]

Evidence? But, for what? My opinion on this topic that resides on a message board even though I've spent the last 4 years of my life getting a minor in Soliology? I don't have the time or patience to write what would be considered a diatribe by most reading this subject. As well, have you added anything to this discussion at all, other than that stupid, pointless post about my opinion? Surely not. So, just keep your mouth shut, thanks.

Well Sociology stands to have much to lose to Sociobiology if such persons are correct. Like I've previously stated, Ive read about this recently, and have discovered it really is a 50/50 split. However, even you Devy, have to admit, just fifty years ago, environment was considered to be 90% of the makeup.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

Well Sociology stands to have much to lose to Sociobiology if such persons are correct. Like I've previously stated, Ive read about this recently, and have discovered it really is a 50/50 split. However, even you Devy, have to admit, just fifty years ago, environment was considered to be 90% of the makeup.

Envrionment has long been thought to have the most drastic affect on individuals, from a historic perspective. I'm not saying I dont think genetics play a role, or certain people arent born differently than others and are "wired wrong" thus making them prone to malicious behavior moreso than others.

The retard who quoted me made me post again, thats all.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

why did everybody stop posting on this thread???

 

[Norsemaiden]

Sociobiologists believe that behaviour is determined by genetics AND environment acting together. For example, someone may be born with a brain allowing the POTENTIAL for genius but they will also need genes for willpower, interest in learning and some personality attributes (on the genetic side), but it would also be essential for them to have access to learning materials such as books (environment).
Someone may be born with the genes for a physical advantage in marathon running, but unless they have the motivation (another gene) and the encouragement and opportunity and preferably someone trains them (all enviromental) they may just be an obese couchpotato.
The genes sort of set the parameters of what we are or can be, but the environment (and a limited level of choice within genetic limitations) often has a massive influence. Pretty obvious really.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Sociobiologists believe that behaviour is determined by genetics AND environment acting together. For example, someone may be born with a brain allowing the POTENTIAL for genius but they will also need genes for willpower, interest in learning and some personality attributes (on the genetic side), but it would also be essential for them to have access to learning materials such as books (environment).
Someone may be born with the genes for a physical advantage in marathon running, but unless they have the motivation (another gene) and the encouragement and opportunity and preferably someone trains them (all enviromental) they may just be an obese couchpotato.
The genes sort of set the parameters of what we are or can be, but the environment (and a limited level of choice within genetic limitations) often has a massive influence. Pretty obvious really.

this^^^ was pretty much the only inteligent post on this thread

 

[Norsemaiden]

Thanks! It's great to be appreciated!

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Thanks! It's great to be appreciated!

yeah well, a couple of the other people were posting some crap that really just didn't make any fucking sense