"bob" wrote in message
news:7b2vc19a63qteras2m2gt83mgaojhqlhgc@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:09:33 -0700, "Jack May"
> wrote:
>>> first time caller... sorry for the cross post, but i just had to say
>>> that there is some great stuff in this debate. and i'm one of them
>>> lefty pinkos that might rub stan the wrong way, but i get your point.
>>> there definitely IS difference in distribution, but i think that i'd
>>> have to ask you if you really think it is biology? or if it is about
>>> historical influence?
>>
>>Historical influences from 60,000 years ago? That is a real grasping at
>>straws.
>
> i'm not talking about anything over 300 years ago and the society that
> has become the usa... i'm talking about where people are
> socio-economically in society today. i don't know what you're talking
> about...
The evolution of humans started about 60,000 years ago with major changes in
the characteristics of people. Those changes proceeded over all these
years with difference in the genes and the resulting changes in the
characteristics of different groups of people.
Your 300 year figure is a weak argument because major changes were made in
people long before 300 years ago. There are social changes that can be
explained by the more recent past, but that is not the whole story.
> what does "people are determined" mean? you have no idea how much is
> nature and how much is nurture. there is no typical 30% number.
> where'd you get that from? "varies considerably.." how very scientific
> of you!! this is crazy stuff
The research to determine how much is genetic vs. environment vs. free will
has been going on for decade using identical twins (identical genetics)
raised apart from birth to fraternal twins (different genes) raised
together, to siblings.
This research has been reported so much in even the popular media, it is
hard to believe that someone could not know about it.
> you have no idea if "in general genetics..." is true. "...show up in
> your relatives"?
Somebody really needs to talk to you about . and reproduction. You seem
to not to understand the birth process. Are you in elementary school?
In . and reproduction, the genes of the parents are combined to produce
kids that are similar to their parents. Otherwise parent could give birth
to cats and dogs as well a kids. All parents talk about how a kid has the
nose of the father for example or the eyes of the mother.
Those similarities are determined by the genes of the parents.
like if your dad kills someone, but you never know
> and you never meet him, you are more likely to kill or your second
> cousin will? weird science. could be true, but i don't think you or
> anyone KNOWS. i HIGHLY doubt that there is a murder gene. probably an
> anger one, but a murder gene is asurd.
I didn't say "a" gene. Obviously since the body is built with the
messenger RNA by reading the instructions in DNA, the brain is also built by
the DNA instructions. There can be DNA instructions in combination that
produce a less active frontal lobe and a more active, more primitive part of
the brain at the back.
There is a lot of research going on using medical diagnosis machines
commonly used in hospitals to see what parts of the brain are active for all
types of human characteristics and activities such as ..
That's like saying there is a
> frisbee gene... there is probably a dexterity one that might make
> frisbee easier, but not for specific behaviours like murder or
> fishing. Gee i feel like kicking a soccer ball. good thing someone
> invented a game that relates directly to my soccer gene. There might
> be genetics in people that relate to things like motivation or comfort
> or stubborness, but it does not transfer that these would only relate
> to math for chinese kids and english skills for white kids and
> basketball for black kids (i'll use some friendly neighbourhood
> stereptyping just for you!!).
All you are doing is showing your total lack of understanding of genetics
and how it works.
> The tendency for murderers is also that they grow up poor, with single
> parents, drop out of school or go to a poor one, have negative peer
> influences and negative self image, vague, unfocused, but high
> asperations, with low opportunities, substance abuse issues, gang
> affiliation, unsafe environment, unsupportive or unhealthy home life
> whether with parents or "spouse". shame about that lobe problem. maybe
> we should spend billions on research to get that fixed...
This is the typical social science, humanities view of society. That view
is thourghly disproved and looked on as the inability of social sciences and
the humanities to deal with knowledge outside of their fields.
> to the contrary, MOST wealth in the us is old money. you might be
> talking about .com uber rich new families, but they are not a majority
> of wealth in the usa and tons of them lost their shirts...
Bill Gates parents were far from the richest people in the world, but Bill
is the richest person in the world.
The trend that has been discovered is that wealth is created by the first
generation of the wealthy. Someone had to start the wealth. The second
generation that splits the money is often far less successful. The third
generation of splitting the wealth tends to lose much of the money and even
go bankrupt.
All you are doing is trying justify you hatred of people that succeed. This
is called tribalism where you hate other groups that you are not in.
Racism is a subset of tribalism. Tribalism is common tool by politicians
that essentially say our tribe is good, their tribe is bad. Follow me.
if you
> think that most of the wealth is new money you are nuts. do a little
> research about old families and who has the wealth in the us... it is
> nearly impossible to become rich now if you are poor. you would have
> to invent something or get a degree from the most expensive schools
> and get a hugh money job. who do you think has more access to the best
> schools or the best research or the best anything? my god, are you for
> real?
I live and work in Silicon Valley, one of the largest wealth generators in
world. There is almost no old family money in Silicon Valley. Virtually
all of the wealth has been created by people from scratch, mainly by
engineers.
> what does "opportunities for wealth" mean. in general, rich stay rich
> and poor stay poor. and it's not just because. there are really
> obvious reasons if you care to look... everyone knows that. you really
> should take a first year sociology course. i think you might be
> talking about upper-middle class and rich, not poor and rich... blacks
> had nothing, whites had power. that has never and probably will never
> balance out. very simple stuff here...
Typical tribalism hatred, If it were true, Silicon Valley would never have
existed because the old money families seldom have their kids go to
engineering school.
>
> i have no idea why you are talking about turing machines and i kinda
> think i give up. you cut out that part about why those differences
> exist beyond biology. even if there is a difference in biology between
> the races, it is not significant enough to override the social
> reasons.
The twins raise apart, etc. research was specifically done to answer the
question you raise. The result are that you are mainly incorrect.
> There are way more immediate social reasons why people are
> different. again, see the differences between upper and lower class
> results in all white parts of the world
Nothing in you statement separates genetics from environment. That
separation is what the research was designed to do, and it accomplished that
goal.
> or all black parts of the
> world. look at incarceration rates in rich and poor communities where
> everyone is white. look at test scores in rich and poor schools in
> every country in the world. look at separated twins who are raised by
> families of different socioeconomics. holy crap, you are incredible!!!
Again you say nothing that can separate the influence of genetics vs.
environment.
> sure research, but i never mentioned environment at this point; i was
> only talking about biology. there probably are differences of some
> sort but we do not know what they are exactly or at least what they
> mean or how they will manifest themselves. but dumb whites and smart
> blacks everywhere thank you for your knowledge of early computers.
You are constantly implying environment vs. genes vs. free will. I agree
you don't think you are doing this, but it appears your education is not
sufficient to understand the implications you are making.
> but our dna code is WAY more similar than different... and it has NOT
> been proven anywhere that biology is more important than environment
> in determining human behaviour. and in fact i would go so far as to
> say that anyone who thinks that your dna has more to say about your
> behaviour than your upbringing or your peers or your social mores or
> your environment is INSANE. i'm done....
There is only a 3% difference in genes between a human and a monkey. I
think it grows to about 5% difference between a mouse and a human. There
is a funny story that when the effort to map the human genome started, they
kept getting the same genetic map for humans and monkey. One of the
researchers walked into the bosses office said essentially, I can't find any
difference, I guess the only difference between a monkey and us is
environment. It was a joke, not the truth as was later found.
Small genetic differences make a large difference in the animal and humans
that are constructed.
|