Genetic determinism

[Knotted]

Obviously you need an environment. Without an environment no organism can exist in the first place.

The point, however, is this: by positing the existence of a genetic program you're locating the primary agency for ontgeny in the genome. Yes, there needs to be an appropriate environment for the program to 'run', but the genome/ environment relationship is not one of equality. Only the genome has 'information' and 'instructions'.

In my view this is a kind of modern preformationism.

And I would repeat that this is very much debatable, and in fact has been debated in numerous academic journals. Try typing 'Developmental Systems Theory' into Google and see what you get.

I'm an outsider looking in. I have to say that the debate seems to be over emphasis rather than any real substantial differences. I don't see why talk of a genetic program means locating the primary agency for ontgeny in the genome although I could see why it might give that impression. It all seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup - although I don't doubt that it's very important to the scientists involved. I'll look into it...

 

[Caecilian]

Yeah, I can see that it must seem a bit arcane.

But unlike most scientific controversies, this one does have political implications.

According to what I've termed 'Genetic Determinism', it is possible to analyze traits in terms of the degree to which they are determined genetically. For example, IQ might be assigned a rate of 70% genetic determinacy, with the remaining 30% in the variability of IQ being attributed to differences in the environment. The same sort of analysis could be applied to, say, likelihood of offending.

The political (mis)uses of this sort of analysis should be obvious- 'Blacks are genetically determined to be less intelligent than whites'; 'Criminality is a genetic not a social problem'; 'The class system is a reflection of the superior genes of the rich' and similar bullshit.

OTOH according to Developmental Systems Theory, the whole idea of apportioning degrees of genetic and environmental causation is wrong to begin with.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

According to what I've termed 'Genetic Determinism', it is possible to analyze traits in terms of the degree to which they are determined genetically. For example, IQ might be assigned a rate of 70% genetic determinacy, with the remaining 30% in the variability of IQ being attributed to differences in the environment. The same sort of analysis could be applied to, say, likelihood of offending.

The political (mis)uses of this sort of analysis should be obvious- 'Blacks are genetically determined to be less intelligent than whites'; 'Criminality is a genetic not a social problem'; 'The class system is a reflection of the superior genes of the rich' and similar bullshit.

OTOH according to Developmental Systems Theory, the whole idea of apportioning degrees of genetic and environmental causation is wrong to begin with.

I don't think you'd find any biologist who talks in that way, or who thinks it is at all valid to talk in that way. The examples you give are of bad science, pure and simple – which the vast majority of genticists would rightly dismiss as such. In fact, to honour crap like the 'Bell Curve' with the word science is to do it too much credit. It isn't science – it's prejudice attempting to justify itself by dressing up in discredited notions that sound clever to some people who aren't scientists.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I don't think you'd find any biologist who talks in that way, or who thinks it is at all valid to talk in that way. The examples you give are of bad science, pure and simple – which the vast majority of genticists would rightly dismiss as such. In fact, to honour crap like the 'Bell Curve' with the word science is to do it too much credit. It isn't science – it's prejudice attempting to justify itself by dressing up in discredited notions that sound clever to some people who aren't scientists.

Why do they get refered to as "respected", then?

Richard Lynn too.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why is who referred to as respected, and by whom?

You'd have to ask them.

But science is an ongoing debate – there's no need for deference to anyone. A cursory glance at Richard Lynn's biography shows me that he's probably full of shit.

Why bother with people who are full of shit.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

He gets promoted by the press, though. That's the problem. These people aren't very distanced by the scientific establishment (ok, that's a bit nebulous, but still). Also the guy credited with DNA has such ideas himself. So I think there's something less fringe about it.

 

[Caecilian]

I don't think you'd find any biologist who talks in that way, or who thinks it is at all valid to talk in that way. The examples you give are of bad science, pure and simple – which the vast majority of genticists would rightly dismiss as such. In fact, to honour crap like the 'Bell Curve' with the word science is to do it too much credit. It isn't science – it's prejudice attempting to justify itself by dressing up in discredited notions that sound clever to some people who aren't scientists.

To a large extent I agree. I was explicitly referring to the political uses that Genetic Determinism can (and has) been put to.

Having said that, Herrnstein, co-author of 'The Bell Curve', was a Professor of Psychology at Harvard.

And then there's James Watson (co-discoverer of DNA, Nobel Laureate). If you remember, he caused a bit of a furore a couple of years ago:

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

The full link is here.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, as Steven Rose says, if he had looked at the evidence first, he'd have realised he was out of his depth. When someone says something like that, it doesn't matter who they are, you have to ask them to show you the evidence. Otherwise, it's just empty mouthing off, as it was in the case of Watson. In the case of the Bell Curve, its methods have been thoroughly debunked. Just because you're a Harvard professor, that doesn't mean you aren't an idiot, is all that means – as I said before, you should defer to nobody, as every individual makes mistakes.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Well, as Steven Rose says, if he had looked at the evidence first, he'd have realised he was out of his depth. When someone says something like that, it doesn't matter who they are, you have to ask them to show you the evidence. Otherwise, it's just empty mouthing off, as it was in the case of Watson. In the case of the Bell Curve, its methods have been thoroughly debunked. Just because you're a Harvard professor, that doesn't mean you aren't an idiot, is all that means – as I said before, you should defer to nobody, as every individual makes mistakes.

Shame that people don't tend to have that attitude.

 

[Caecilian]

Well, as Steven Rose says, if he had looked at the evidence first, he'd have realised he was out of his depth. When someone says something like that, it doesn't matter who they are, you have to ask them to show you the evidence. Otherwise, it's just empty mouthing off, as it was in the case of Watson. In the case of the Bell Curve, its methods have been thoroughly debunked. Just because you're a Harvard professor, that doesn't mean you aren't an idiot, is all that means – as I said before, you should defer to nobody, as every individual makes mistakes.

Yes, I agree completely. 'The Bell Curve' is demonstrably crap. Watson was talking racist shite, not science.

However, as long as Genetic Determinism is widely accepted, its going to be (mis)used in this sort of way.

Fortunately, Genetic Determinism is coming under increasing attack from scientists such as Steve Rose, Richard Lewontin, Susan Oyama, Sahotra Sarkar and Paul Griffiths, to name just a few prominent researchers. IMO their arguments are sound, and Genetic Determinism is wrong.

Politics wouldn't be a good enough reason to reject Genetic Determinism if it were in fact good science. The fact that it isn't good science, and has very unpleasant political uses makes it very important to argue against it.

Which I suppose is why I'm spending so much of New Years Day on this Discussion Board.

 

[bhamgeezer]

I don't understand the purpose of this thread. Only a nutcase would argue that an individual is entirely the product of their genes, it's not a position that is taken seriously. The only question remaining is to what degree genes or enviroment play in regards to specific attributes of a person. A question utterly irrelevant to the supposed political implications of holding a genetic or enviromental view. Frankly the suggestion that a genetic theory that puts limitations on what an individual is capable of, has negative political implications is simply nonsense.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

It was more aimed at the idea that there are genes for specific social behaviours in the first place. It's like a priori ideas

 

[bhamgeezer]

It was more aimed at the idea that there are genes for specific social behaviours in the first place. It's like a priori ideas

And if evidence were found that showed genes were responsible for predisposition towards certain social behaviours, what then?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Unless it's proven, then it's a silly assumption. I don't think there's any good reason to consider it likely.

 

[butchersapron]

Why not?

 

[bhamgeezer]

Unless it's proven - which it won't be, because it's not true - then it's a silly assumption.

How do you know it's not true? Why is the degree to which genes play a role of any significance at all? You are adding a negative connotation to the genetic approach which is entirely unfair. Simply because various scientific theories have been used to serve various political agendas does not mean such theories inherently support them.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Behaviours are only what we call them. It must be very different from the POV of nature. So it doesn't sound scientific.

In general it's not the existence of such and such, the problems are hermeneutic ones.

 

[butchersapron]

Behaviours are only what we call them. It must be very different from the POV of nature. So it doesn't sound scientific.

In general it's not the existence of such and such, the problems are hermeneutic ones.

Was that reply to me?

It exposes the basis of your statements either way. Just things you said. Seriously, argue for your position or for your way of determing a postion. Stop running away.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Social behaviour. Competition vs. cooperation. The problem isn't so much the veracity of material claims, such as a particular gene existing, as the assumption that the idea of competition pre-exists society. They even have to make genes to do the mediating for them, such is their reductionism.

Who's 'they'?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I don't get it. When the scientists tell you about global warming, you believe it.

When they tell you about genetic determinism, you don't believe it.

What's the diff?

 

[butchersapron]

I put my life on the line for this pedestarian contrarism? schh..

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I put my life on the line for this pedestarian contrarism? schh..

How is your life at risk? You might get so apoplectic with rage at the computer, that you kick out, and your big toe accidentally goes into the electric socket?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Was that reply to me?

It exposes the basis of your statements either way. Just things you said. Seriously, argue for your position or for your way of determing a postion. Stop running away.

I've been arguing from a perspective of irreducibility. The problem we might have is that our idea of nature is simply pacified - something dead that we appropriate. Thus, Nietzsche's warning of being "all too human" can be advanced against naturalism.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Another thing I find interesting here is that DNA-as-information is perfectly suited to neoliberal notions of intellectual property, and therefore serves the placing of biogenetic rents on the means of biological reproduction (e.g Monsanto, Human Genome patents).

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I've been arguing from a perspective of irreducibility. The problem we might have is that our idea of nature is simply pacified - something dead that we appropriate. Thus, Nietzsche's warning of being "all too human" can be advanced against naturalism.

Am I just tired, or is this just a load of bullshit?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Ibn: do you think talking that way makes you sound smart? I'm not trying to be mean here. I've seen you actually talk in a clear, understandable manner.

Trying to talk like an 'intellectual', just looks a bit silly, imo. I think you have some good ideas, you just have to explain them without larding on the jargon.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Nietzsche might as well be warning of domestication. The world is already one domesticated space. But even the colonisation of capital into our physical substance? That's only going to lead to so much degradation of life, and it might be what we get for being "human, all too human".

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Nietzsche might as well be warning of domestication. The world is already one domesticated space. But even the colonisation of capital into our physical substance? That's only going to lead to so much degradation of life, and it might be what we get for being "human, all too human".

How do you conclude that the world is 'already one domesticated space'?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

For all intents and purposes it is. Surrounded by satellites that can transmit any information anywhere, few places or spheres of life not altered by stuff we do, and we already making the first attempts at geoengineering (probably absolutely necessary).

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

For all intents and purposes it is. Surrounded by satellites that can transmit any information anywhere, few places or spheres of life not altered by stuff we do.

'Altered', is not the same as 'domesticated', even if I were to agree that everything has been altered.