So I was at Barnes N Noble a few weeks ago and picked up this book called 'This Idea Must Die'. It has a ton of researchers who wrote for it. Each person writes a short, 3 to 4 page writing on what idea must die and why. it's a great read so far. Jared Diamond, Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins wrote for it.
Now, I just came to this section in the book where it Steven Pinker talks about behavior=genes+environment. To quote Pinker from the book:
Genes
Molecular biologists have appropriated the term "gene" to refer to the stretches of DNA that code for a protein. Unfortunately, this sense differs from the one used in population genetics, behavioral genetics and evolutionary theory - namely, any information carried that's transmittable across generations and has sustained effects on the phenotype. This includes any aspect of DNA that can affect gene expression, and is closer to what is meant by "innate" than genes in the molecular biologists' narrow sense. The confusion between the two leads to innumerable red herrings in discussions of out makeup, such as the banality that the expression of genes (in the sens of protein-coding stretches of DNA) is regulated by signals from the environment. How else could it be? The alternative is that every cell synthesizes every protein all the time! The epigenetics bubble inflated by the science media is based on a similar confusion. (Emphasis mine.)
Environment:
This term for the inputs to an organism is also misleading. Of all the energy impinging on an organism, only a subset, processed and transformed in complex ways, has an effect on its subsequent information processing. Which information is taken in, how it's transformed, and how it affects the organism (that is, the way the organism learns) all depend on the organisms innate organization. To speak of the environment "determining" or "shaping" behavior is unperspicuous. (Emphasis mine.)
Practically, you can think of it as the differences between identical twins who grow up in the same home. They share their genes, parents, older and younger siblings, school, peers, and neighborhood. So what could make them different? Under the assumption that behavior is a product of genes plus environment, it must be something in the environment of one that is not in the environment of the other.
But this category really should be called "miscellaneous/unknown," because is has nothing necessarily to do with any measurable aspect of the environment, such as one sibling getting the top bunk and the other the bottom, or a parent unpredictably favoring one child, or one sibling getting chased by a dog, coming down with a virus, or being favored by a teacher. These influences are purely conjectural, and studies looking for them have failed to find them. (Emphasis mine.) The alternative is that this component actually consists of the effects of chance - new mutations, quirky prenatal effects, noise in brain development, and events in life with unpredictable effects.
A final confusion in the eqaution is the seemingly sophisticated add-on of "gene-environment interactions." This is also designed to confuse. Gene-environment interactions do not refer to the fact that the environment is necessary for genes to do their thing (which is true of all genes). It refers to a flipflop effect inn which the genes affect a person one way in one environment but nother way in another environment, whereas an alernative gene has a different patter. For example, if you inherit allele 1, you are vulnerable: a stressor makes you neurotic. If you inherit allele 2, you are resilient: a stressor leaves you normal. With either gene, if you are never stressed, you are normal.
Gene-environment interactions in this technical sense, confusingly, go into the "unique environmental" component, because they're not the same (on average) in siblings growing up in the same family. Just as confusingly, "interactions" in the commonsense - namely, that a person with a given genotype is predictably affected by the environment - goes into the "heritability" component, because the quantitative genetics measures only correlations. This confound is behind the finding that the heritability of intelligence increases, and the effects of shared environment decrease, over a person's lifetime. One explanation is that genes have effects late in life, but another is that people with a given genotype place themselves in environments that indulge their inborn tastes and talents. The "environment" increasingly depends on their genes, rather than being the cause of exogenous behavior. (Emphasis mine.)
Thoughts? There is another part in the book about 'Innateness', will make a post on that later.
So, it seems that those with certain genes place themselves in environments that indulge their inborn tastes and talents. "Environment" INCREASINGLY DEPENDS ON THEIR GENES RATHER THAN BEING THE CAUSE OF EXOGENOUS BEHAVIOR.
Oy vey. Boom.
So if those with certain genes put themselves into environments based on their genes, what does that say about coalburners and oildrillers? What does that say about leftists? That they put themselves into their environments due to their genetics.
We know that genes are the driving force in life, and with this new 'epigentic' field of genetics, they will attempt to say that environment is the main cause of molding genetics, because one may have different things happen to them in one environment and not the other. But, since we have just seen here that those with certain genes put themselves into their environments, what does that tell you about leftists, coalburners and oildrillers?
If one chooses their enviornment based on their genetic makeup, wouldn't that throw out any and all environmental interactions?
For instance, how leftists say that negros can't help it and are 'born in to poverty'. Negros, as well as other low IQ peoples, choose their environment based on their genetics.
THE ENVIRONMENT YOU CHOOSE IS BASED ON YOUR GENETICS. THE PEOPLE DICTATE THE ENVIRONMENT OF A PLACE.
A shitty environment does not make you a shitty person, you are already in that shitty environment because YOU ARE A SHITTY PERSON AND IT IS GENETIC!!!
I have been saying this for a while here now, great to have some info for my claim!!
view the rest of the comments →
[–] eagleshigh [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
It is. I'm typing up the whole part plus adding some commentary and a chart or 2 on my blog right now. Will be done in 15 mins.