acidpenguin wrote:
It's distinctly crass to suggest somebody holds fascist views on eugenics simply because they stated an interest in genetic studies.
Not what I said. I said Eugenics is the "science" of trying to determine a genetic component to intelligence, and we all know where that went last time mankind went there, sterilizations, and genocide. So yes I am saying you're proposing a viewpoint that the fascists held, that simply cannot be denied.
Whether you believe that mankind is now magically capable of not acting badly on statistics that suggest for instance that -northern Japanese people and Ashkenazi Jews have a higher percentage of genius and middle Africans, and Scotts have lower than average numbers, therefore it's genetic- well that's besides the point, it's a "feeling" with no historical references to back it up. Whether you're of jewish or any other ethnic group that has suffered because of Eugenics based racial profiling is also irrelevant, there are and always has been people of every ethnic group that espouse Eugenics of one form or another. Seriously, I've met plenty of jewish people who thought jews were smarter by ethnicity. That statistics comparable in pseudo science to the Bell Curve proved it, It's depressing really.
Also how many times do I have to point out that I believe that genetics in combination with nurture determine how a person turns out before you notice?
I've never argued against nurture, I'm arguing against your suggestion that genius is "partially" a genetic component, and for that matter do I really have to say that it's in reference to healthy genetically normal average people? Come on?
There is increasing evidence that genetics plays an extremely important part in who we are on every level. We are physical beings and human physicality is influenced massively by our genes, that includes our brains which in turn hugely influences who we are, unless of course you are suggesting some form of duality where 'the self' is some mystical magical entity distinct from our physical aspect. Genetic studies are in their infancy, it's inane to say 'nothing has been proved so nothing will be proved'.
There is great amounts of evidence that genetics plays a role in susceptibility to disease, muscle development, all kinds of things like that, but there has never been any real evidence that any strain of mankind is particularly gifted. In fact that's one thing that Eugenics more or less set out to prove, then pretty much disproved.
There is more genetic variation and difference within a race or ethnicity than the differences between races and ethnicities. Now why do you suppose that is? It would on an evolutionary level make more sense if there was major differences, but reality is we're all a lot closer related than we used to think. DNA testing has traced us all back to a part of northern Africa, and the people there have all known variations of DNA, it's all in there, pale, blond hair, short, redhead etc. all of it. So we haven't actually changed much in a really really long time. In fact with modern society we aren't really forcing the hand of chance at all anymore. No "lesser" strain gets eliminated, and really we don't have anything wot worry about we're doing great survival wise.
If you want to be an intellectual Luddite go ahead, it's your mind but please stop trying to portray anybody that believes genetics is important as some kind of monster who would condone the massacres carried out by the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.. it's plain fucking offensive, get off your high moral horse a minute.
Your talking about and espousing science that hasn't proven anything that its tried to yet, but it has been used by racists and monsters.
Again, there is mountains of evidence that nurture is vastly important to the development of intellectual and creative people, and literally nothing of substance to prove a genetic component in regular healthy babies. Here's the clincher though,
there is absolutely no way to separate nature from nurture to get any meaningful results favoring nature, but it's obvious that nurture plays a role. I do not think it's even close to being a luddite to point out the simple fact that these studies have very little real ground to stand on. They can't even do basic studies on a test group, because nurture can be very different in the same family unit and forcing a baby from a healthy high functioning family into a horrible life to prove this is beyond sick.
What matters is that he is given the same rights under law, the same protections and treated with the same dignity and compassion as anybody else. That was my point, don't try to bend it into some veiled desire to euthanise ethnic groups or those who don't have 'smart genes'.
I worked with the developmentally disabled as well, and you should know that they simply do not have the same rights as you or me. I'm very happy there's no euthanasia lobby for sure, but they aren't allowed the kind of freedom we have. Maybe the mildly mentally handicapped, but the more handicapped the more caged. You know that. Yes it's more or less the right thing to do, but to a large degree I think the severely handicapped are housed and taken care of because we don't want to end up monsters, again.
Yes, in the past humans have treated the disadvantaged, or those perceived to be inferior (often on entirely spurious and/or sinister grounds) utterly shittily. Hopefully we can progress as a species.. there are a lot of good people fighting for human rights and trying to ensure we don't enter some Huxleyan dystopia, burying your head in the sand and flapping your hands shouting 'omg the gene nazis are coming' doesn't help anybody.
Again, having a problem with pseudo science like trying to separate nature from nurture isn't burying your head in the sand, ignoring history in favor of your own wishes and desires for a utopian future is.
Admittedly it could all go horribly wrong and Monsanto could take over the world and breed armies of genetically perfect super beings while murdering the rest of us in our sleep. But pretending the issues aren't there, or hoping they will go away if you ignore them (or hoping the science will go away) is utterly naive and one of the things that would play right into the hands of those who want might want to exploit such discoveries for nefarious purposes.
I've never argued against studies, I've argued against the relevance of such studies and the obvious emotional attachment mankind has to the idea of the genetic component of genius.
Consider this as well, modern ideas on how the brain works have passed on by the old stoner common conception that we only use 90% of the brain. It's been a while since I read up on the studies, but basically they now think that the brain sort of dynamically stores information at all kinds of backup locations. It explains why a person whose motor cortex area of the brain can be destroyed, then a couple years later after rigorously retraining they can walk again. It also helps to explain how a person can retrain their brain to do amazing things and how for instance Einstein could almost fail math early in life. IMO it also points out that we're capable of a lot more. Maybe not as much as the hippies bonging out and thinking about that 90% thought, but enough to also make the nature/nurture debate veer again towards nurture.
The question I have for you and all those who give nature a role in genius etc. is why you think it's an important area to study? or even has relevance. Knowing what we do about nurture and the
absolute inability for science to separate out that component, even slightly, why are we still attached to the idea that we can isolate the smart gene?
