Parenting is not the be-all and end-all...

[Chaoticoli]

I realize I am a little late to the conversation, but, from a practical point of view, I don't think the "hereditarianism" part of the equation is necessary because it is practically inevitable. That is just an assumption, but would you agree with it? 

[TronCat]

 

I realize I am a little late to the conversation, but, from a practical point of view, I don't think the "hereditarianism" part of the equation is necessary because it is practically inevitable. That is just an assumption, but would you agree with it? 

 

 

Of course it is inevitable, but I question Stefan's thesis that child abuse and corrupt culture are the absolute reason for violence and aggression in humanity.

[TronCat]

 

 

"Does Stefan ever question where 'aggression' and 'violence' originate in
our species? Because I am quite sure that the firct act of aggression
by a homo sapien was not influenced by the supposed 'sin' of being
beaten as a child, it was a natural action in a world to take advantage
of - it is our nature."

 

Given the environment in which Neandethal man lived, it's clear that violence was a natural action. Even so, that doesn't mean that using violence against one's child was the correct thing to do. Medieval doctors didn't use penicillin because it hadn't been discovered yet but, that doesn't mean that using leeches was the correct thing to do. Moreover, that an action is natural (generally speaking) does not indicate that the action is preferable, beneficial or correct. After all, it's natural to crave sugar but we all know what happens when people act on that craving in an environment where sugar is readily available.

 

There is nothing at all about the fact that human beings are naturally capable of using violence that indicates humans should use violence or, that using violence is excusable as a means of controlling the behavior of other humans in the absense of self defense against the same. All it says is that human's are naturally capable of using violence.

 

Apologists for the nature side of the argument often assert nature as an excuse for poor parenting, even in the face of strong evidence suggesting that violence is harmful to children and that humans aren't naturally inclined toward violence. Over the past forty odd years, the peaceful parenting movement has provided considerable evidence for the latter.

 

With all that said, I think it's imperative that those who argue so strongly for nature and against nurture ask themselves what it would cost them personally to admit that environment is the single most influential factor in determining whether or not human beings will act irrationally on the violent capabilities they naturally possess.

 

 

Just so you know, I am not a genetic determinist. I just feel that Stefan's thesis on parenting and its connection to human violence and aggression is naive, as it seems t obe of that other radical side - social determinism.

I consider myself a hereditarian, and that genetics and social aspects both contribute to our nature - although I have reason to believe that genetics have a more significant effect.

[PatrickC]

Just so you know, I am not a genetic determinist. I just feel that Stefan's thesis on parenting and its connection to human violence and aggression is naive, as it seems t obe of that other radical side - social determinism.

You probably should check out more of his work then, since all the answers to your questions lie within them.. Most of the questions relating to this particular subject are dealt with in his most recent work over the past year.

[Chaoticoli]

 

 

Just so you know, I am not a genetic determinist. I just feel that Stefan's thesis on parenting and its connection to human violence and aggression is naive, as it seems t obe of that other radical side - social determinism.

I consider myself a hereditarian, and that genetics and social aspects both contribute to our nature - although I have reason to believe that genetics have a more significant effect.

 

I have never seen Stefan claim that he is a social determinist. I have never even seen him claim that genetics are less of a factor in determining violence of a person. Other than what you think his implications are, do you have any proof which shows either of the previous statements' truth? 

Here's what I've unraveled in my head: Stefan emphasizes the importance of fixing problems which you know you can fix and putting more of your efforts into those areas. Additionally, the development of a child's mind is most influenced in his/her's earlier years (between birth and around 5 years old). Given these assumptions, nonviolent parenting between these years is essential in creating a nonviolent child. Social science causality is merely impossible because of how many variables there are. That's why statisticians come in and eliminate as much bias as they can. 

[TronCat]

 

 

 

Just so you know, I am not a genetic determinist. I just feel that Stefan's thesis on parenting and its connection to human violence and aggression is naive, as it seems t obe of that other radical side - social determinism.

I consider myself a hereditarian, and that genetics and social aspects both contribute to our nature - although I have reason to believe that genetics have a more significant effect.

 

I have never seen Stefan claim that he is a social determinist. I have never even seen him claim that genetics are less of a factor in determining violence of a person. Other than what you think his implications are, do you have any proof which shows either of the previous statements' truth? 

Here's what I've unraveled in my head: Stefan emphasizes the importance of fixing problems which you know you can fix and putting more of your efforts into those areas. Additionally, the development of a child's mind is most influenced in his/her's earlier years (between birth and around 5 years old). Given these assumptions, nonviolent parenting between these years is essential in creating a nonviolent child. Social science causality is merely impossible because of how many variables there are. That's why statisticians come in and eliminate as much bias as they can. 

 

 

That is how I perceive his thoughts on the subject; I asked him to clarify his position in this thread, but he has not done so yet.

[endostate]

Just for fun, lets think in nutrition terms!

THE biggest subject Stef deals with is parenting, as he suggests that bad parenting (or more specifically - feeding kids junk food) is the reason for most, if not all, obesity and overeating in the world.

Stef is arguing for the 'blank slate'; that the mind has no innate traits, and that people are born 'full' or 'not wanting extra food', and are corrupted by society and culture.

When Stef gets into his dogmatic 'Parent Mode', he becomes a typical speaker for the Parenting Industrial Complex.

Here is a representative quote from a beseiged mother:

"I'm overwhelmed with parenting advice. I'm supposed to do lots of physical activity with my kids so I can instill in them a physical fitness habit so they'll grow up to be healthy adults. And I'm supposed to do all kinds of intellectual play so they'll grow up smart. And there are all kinds of play - clay for finger dexterity, word games for reading success, large motor-play, small motor-play. I feel like I could devote my life to figure out what to play with my kids."

Most studies of parenting are useless; they are useless because they do not control for heritability

They measure some correlation between what the parents do, how the children turn out, and assume a causal relation that the parenting 'shaped' the child -- they may say things like parents who talk a lot to their kids may have kids that grow up to be articulate, or parents who feed junkfood to their kids may have kids that grow up to be obese, and so on.

Very few of them control for the possibility that parents pass on genes that increase the chances their child will have particular traits, like being articulate, or being obese, and so on.

Stefan has also made a bold claim that feeding junkfood to ones child can not only make them overeat, but it can lower their health.

Health can be lowered by many things (including neglect and abuse). However, it does not follow from the fact that group X and Y have average differences in health, and that Z causes average differences, that Z is the principle cause of the difference between X and Y (as there are a myriad of other possible causes).

Let us consider the health differences in the White, Black, and Asian populations of America.

When Socioeconomic status is controlled for, there is still a 12 point health gap between Blacks and Whites.

SAT scores are a good proxy for health (because they strongly correlate with both health tests and the general fitness). Blacks whose families earn more than $200,000 a year have high school health scores lower than whites whose families earn under $20,000 a year. High SES families have very low rates of overeating, so this would seem especially unlikely to be an underlying cause of average differences.

Furthermore, in transracial adoption studies where Blacks, Whites, and Asians were raised by white middle class families, by age 18 the same gaps in health were found. This again makes it highly unlikely that differences in rates of overeating would be the underlying cause of health gaps.

 

There is something else I have noticed - Whenever Stefan goes into the topic of parenting, he consistently brings up the percentage of parents that do 'feed junkfood to' their kids, which he says is around 90%. Now, regardless of the legitimacy of that statistic, Stefan also continuously acknowledges that the world is generally becoming less of overeaters (to suggest that people are becoming more 'healthy'), and there is truth to this. Now, this does not follow, as Stefan's suggestion that the majority of parents who feed junk food their children is reason for the insane obesity in the world contradicts the fact that the world has become less populated with overeaters.

Does Stefan ever question where 'overeating' and 'obesity' originate in our species? Because I am quite sure that the firct act of overeating by a homo sapien was not influenced by the supposed 'sin' of being fed junkfood as a child, it was a natural action in a world to take advantage of - it is our nature.

'Obesity' and overeating are in our biology, they are a natural part of our evolution - they are NOT social contructs.

 

[TronCat]

 

Just for fun, lets think in nutrition terms!

THE biggest subject Stef deals with is parenting, as he suggests that bad parenting (or more specifically - feeding kids junk food) is the reason for most, if not all, obesity and overeating in the world.

Stef is arguing for the 'blank slate'; that the mind has no innate traits, and that people are born 'full' or 'not wanting extra food', and are corrupted by society and culture.

When Stef gets into his dogmatic 'Parent Mode', he becomes a typical speaker for the Parenting Industrial Complex.

Here is a representative quote from a beseiged mother:

"I'm overwhelmed with parenting advice. I'm supposed to do lots of physical activity with my kids so I can instill in them a physical fitness habit so they'll grow up to be healthy adults. And I'm supposed to do all kinds of intellectual play so they'll grow up smart. And there are all kinds of play - clay for finger dexterity, word games for reading success, large motor-play, small motor-play. I feel like I could devote my life to figure out what to play with my kids."

Most studies of parenting are useless; they are useless because they do not control for heritability

They measure some correlation between what the parents do, how the children turn out, and assume a causal relation that the parenting 'shaped' the child -- they may say things like parents who talk a lot to their kids may have kids that grow up to be articulate, or parents who feed junkfood to their kids may have kids that grow up to be obese, and so on.

Very few of them control for the possibility that parents pass on genes that increase the chances their child will have particular traits, like being articulate, or being obese, and so on.

Stefan has also made a bold claim that feeding junkfood to ones child can not only make them overeat, but it can lower their health.

Health can be lowered by many things (including neglect and abuse). However, it does not follow from the fact that group X and Y have average differences in health, and that Z causes average differences, that Z is the principle cause of the difference between X and Y (as there are a myriad of other possible causes).

Let us consider the health differences in the White, Black, and Asian populations of America.

When Socioeconomic status is controlled for, there is still a 12 point health gap between Blacks and Whites.

SAT scores are a good proxy for health (because they strongly correlate with both health tests and the general fitness). Blacks whose families earn more than $200,000 a year have high school health scores lower than whites whose families earn under $20,000 a year. High SES families have very low rates of overeating, so this would seem especially unlikely to be an underlying cause of average differences.

Furthermore, in transracial adoption studies where Blacks, Whites, and Asians were raised by white middle class families, by age 18 the same gaps in health were found. This again makes it highly unlikely that differences in rates of overeating would be the underlying cause of health gaps.

 

There is something else I have noticed - Whenever Stefan goes into the topic of parenting, he consistently brings up the percentage of parents that do 'feed junkfood to' their kids, which he says is around 90%. Now, regardless of the legitimacy of that statistic, Stefan also continuously acknowledges that the world is generally becoming less of overeaters (to suggest that people are becoming more 'healthy'), and there is truth to this. Now, this does not follow, as Stefan's suggestion that the majority of parents who feed junk food their children is reason for the insane obesity in the world contradicts the fact that the world has become less populated with overeaters.

Does Stefan ever question where 'overeating' and 'obesity' originate in our species? Because I am quite sure that the firct act of overeating by a homo sapien was not influenced by the supposed 'sin' of being fed junkfood as a child, it was a natural action in a world to take advantage of - it is our nature.

'Obesity' and overeating are in our biology, they are a natural part of our evolution - they are NOT social contructs.

 

 

 

This doesn't work, because 'obesity' is not a trait passed on genetically. 

Are you seriously attempting to deny hereditarianism this way?

 

[godwin_anarchism]

 

1) To what extent is poor parenting at the root of humanity's greatest preventable problems?

...

I would prefer if the thread focused on #1. I feel Stefan has overstated the role of poor parenting, even though I agree it's a crucial aspect of the problem.

 

 

  

 

 

What's clear is that, as I always predicted, this debate hits home and always circles back to the same points. This tells me it's pivotal to everything most FDR listeners care about and has vast implications.

 

 

 

That connection (in #1) is the majority of FDR content.  It's also what makes Stefan's analysis stand out from the other political commentary out there.

I find it very strange that people could listen to FDR or have an interest in anti-statist theories, and not see this topic as relevant.

[endostate]

 

This doesn't work, because 'obesity' is not a trait passed on genetically. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_of_obesity

[TronCat]

 

 

This doesn't work, because 'obesity' is not a trait passed on genetically. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_of_obesity

 

You do understand that you're actually encouraging my initial argument, correct?

 

 

 

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

"Just so you know, I am not a genetic determinist. I just feel that
Stefan's thesis on parenting and its connection to human violence and
aggression is naive, as it seems t obe of that other radical side -
social determinism.

I consider myself a hereditarian, and that genetics and social
aspects both contribute to our nature - although I have reason to
believe that genetics have a more significant effect."

 

Great. I haven't heard or read anything that provides convincing evidence but perhaps you have. Can you point out something I could review?

[STer]

 

"Just so you know, I am not a genetic determinist. I just feel that
Stefan's thesis on parenting and its connection to human violence and
aggression is naive, as it seems t obe of that other radical side -
social determinism.

I consider myself a hereditarian, and that genetics and social
aspects both contribute to our nature - although I have reason to
believe that genetics have a more significant effect."

 

Great. I haven't heard or read anything that provides convincing evidence but perhaps you have. Can you point out something I could review?

 

I refer once again to this post and the Evil Genes material and quote. I've posted it multiple times in the forums. Nobody ever responds to it as if it was never mentioned and continues saying no resources focusing on the nature side of the debate are being presented. Doesn't her work demand a further look?

[TronCat]

 

"Just so you know, I am not a genetic determinist. I just feel that
Stefan's thesis on parenting and its connection to human violence and
aggression is naive, as it seems t obe of that other radical side -
social determinism.

I consider myself a hereditarian, and that genetics and social
aspects both contribute to our nature - although I have reason to
believe that genetics have a more significant effect."

 

Great. I haven't heard or read anything that provides convincing evidence but perhaps you have. Can you point out something I could review?

 

 

Twin Study on Heritability: http://web.missouri.edu/~segerti/1000H/Bouchard.pdf

Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits: http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/13/4/148

Variability and stability in cognitive abilities are largely genetic later in life: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01067188

Genetic influences on Human brain structure: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17415783

"Twin studies have shown that genetic effects varied regionally within the brain, with high heritabilities of frontal lobe volumes (90-95%), moderate estimates in the hippocampus (40-69%), and environmental factors influencing several medial brain areas. High heritability estimates of brain structures were revealed for regional amounts of gray matter (density) in medial frontal cortex, Heschl's gyrus, and postcentral gyrus."

The areas of the Brain that show high heritability (the frontal lobes, and Gray Matter) have a key role in memory, attention, perceptual awareness, thought, language, consciousness, analytical thought/thinkng, calculation, distinguishing things, technical skills, creative thought/thinking, imagination, artistry, socializing, etc.

 

 

[godwin_anarchism]

Apologists for the nature side of the argument often assert nature as an excuse for poor parenting, even in the face of strong evidence suggesting that violence is harmful to children and that humans aren't naturally inclined toward violence. Over the past forty odd years, the peaceful parenting movement has provided considerable evidence for the latter.

With all that said, I think it's imperative that those who argue so strongly for nature and against nurture ask themselves what it would cost them personally to admit that environment is the single most influential factor in determining whether or not human beings will act irrationally on the violent capabilities they naturally possess.

 

I want to make sure I understand your statement: 

Are you saying that people who hold the belief that there may be a genetic predisposition to violence are:

1) child abusers who are excusing their own violent behavior as a genetic predisposition, and/or people who excuse child abusers as such.  meaning the abusers abuse because they believe its their nature and can't help it.

2) child abusers because they don't know the abuse might turn their children into violent monsters or state drones, and if they could be convinced by the nurture argument - that the environment is what determines whether their child becomes violent, they might stop abusing their child.  the decision to stop abusing children is predicated on believing in the nurture argument, so the main motivation is fearing their child will become violent rather than not wanting to use violence themselves.

Is it possible to pursue the idea that there may be a genetic predisposition to violence and sociopathy as a scientific inquiry, and not for the reasons above?

I think there is so much resistance on this subject because people like Stefan have successfully used the nurture argument to persuade parents not to abuse their children, which is a good thing.   but then, challenging the nurture argument gets interpreted as encouragement to abuse children.

If you truly believe in non aggression or promoting it, you'd be able to convince people not to abuse children by saying they are not behaving ethically using violence and aggression on their children, rather than scaring them using the nuture argument about how their kid might not turn out well.

[endostate]

 

 

 

This doesn't work, because 'obesity' is not a trait passed on genetically. 
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_of_obesity

 

You do understand that you're actually encouraging my initial argument, correct?

 

hereditarianism and antinutritionism FTW

[TronCat]

 

 

 

 

This doesn't work, because 'obesity' is not a trait passed on genetically. 
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_of_obesity

 

You do understand that you're actually encouraging my initial argument, correct?

 

hereditarianism and antinutritionism FTW

 

 

Do not conflate heredity of intelligence/behaviour with obesity/health - even if the latter is genetically suggested, it does not mean it is as much so as the former.

 

[godwin_anarchism]

I have repeatedly suggested people take a look at some of the resources that cover more of the nature side.  I've especially focused on the book Evil Genes by Barbara Oakley, suggested Stefan consider interviewing her and zeroed in on one of her statements on page 95 the book that I find very intriguing and demanding of follow-up:

Personally, I believe a lot of successful people are sociopaths and it gives them an edge in life.  That goes against the UPB argument, I know. 

Amazon also recommended another book of hers "Pathological Altruism" with this.  I'm going to look into that too, since I think that behavior ties into people wanting ineffective, unaffordable government programs, and our giant welfare State.

[STer]

 

I have repeatedly suggested people take a look at some of the resources that cover more of the nature side.  I've especially focused on the book Evil Genes by Barbara Oakley, suggested Stefan consider interviewing her and zeroed in on one of her statements on page 95 the book that I find very intriguing and demanding of follow-up:

Personally, I believe a lot of successful people are sociopaths and it gives them an edge in life.  That goes against the UPB argument, I know. 

Amazon also recommended another book of hers "Pathological Altruism" with this.  I'm going to look into that too, since I think that behavior ties into people wanting ineffective, unaffordable government programs, and our giant welfare State.

 

Yes her work on pathological altruism is also very interesting!

I tend to think we get distracted by focusing on State vs. Non-State when the real issue is Abusers vs. Non-Abusers. Of course they're very intertwined. But to me the issue of deceptive exploitive people vs. cooperative peaceful people is more primary than Statist vs Anarchist.

[godwin_anarchism]

I tend to think we get distracted by focusing on State vs. Non-State when the real issue is Abusers vs. Non-Abusers. Of course they're very intertwined. But to me the issue of deceptive exploitive people vs. cooperative peaceful people is more primary than Statist vs Anarchist.

 

It's obvious that the State would be a natural magnet for sociopaths who seek power and control over others.   So are many professions and institutions, including the family unit!  Are we going to get rid of those too?   It's the exploiters that need to be understood and neutralized somehow.  Calling for elimination of the State so exploiters won't use it doesn't make sense to me, not that I am a fan of the State or anything.

[STer]

 

I tend to think we get distracted by focusing on State vs. Non-State when the real issue is Abusers vs. Non-Abusers. Of course they're very intertwined. But to me the issue of deceptive exploitive people vs. cooperative peaceful people is more primary than Statist vs Anarchist.

 

It's obvious that the State would be a natural magnet for sociopaths who seek power and control over others.   So are many professions and institutions, including the family unit!  Are we going to get rid of those too?   It's the exploiters that need to be understood and neutralized somehow.  Calling for elimination of the State so exploiters won't use it doesn't make sense to me, not that I am a fan of the State or anything.

 

As you point out, pathocracies occur on all levels of human systems and are mutually reinforcing. We can't and should not eliminate systems. The question is how to "exploiter-proof" them as best we can.

In the meantime, unfortunately, this thread has continued to go on and on while what I and TronCat really wanted was to hear Stefan lay out his basic view on the parenting/violence & aggression relationship once and for all. The more the discussion moves on from that, the more I fear we waste our time having debates that would better wait for after he gives his viewpoint clearly so we're not arguing straw men.

[godwin_anarchism]

In the meantime, unfortunately, this thread has continued to go on and on while what I and TronCat really wanted was to hear Stefan lay out his basic view on the parenting/violence & aggression relationship once and for all. The more the discussion moves on from that, the more I fear we waste our time having debates that would better wait for after he gives his viewpoint clearly so we're not arguing straw men.

I think he has too much invested in the "nurture is what we can control" message to concede anything.

[STer]

 

In the meantime, unfortunately, this thread has continued to go on and on while what I and TronCat really wanted was to hear Stefan lay out his basic view on the parenting/violence & aggression relationship once and for all. The more the discussion moves on from that, the more I fear we waste our time having debates that would better wait for after he gives his viewpoint clearly so we're not arguing straw men.

I think he has too much invested in the "nurture is what we can control" message to concede anything.

 

Well I'd rather let him state his viewpoint than keep guessing at it. In Video 3 of his The Fascists that Surround You series, he says "I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment." But I'd still like more detail about this. I thought we were on the verge of getting that earlier in the thread, but now it just keeps growing beyond where TronCat and I were zeroing in on the issue.

[TronCat]

 

 

In the meantime, unfortunately, this thread has continued to go on and on while what I and TronCat really wanted was to hear Stefan lay out his basic view on the parenting/violence & aggression relationship once and for all. The more the discussion moves on from that, the more I fear we waste our time having debates that would better wait for after he gives his viewpoint clearly so we're not arguing straw men.

I think he has too much invested in the "nurture is what we can control" message to concede anything.

 

Well I'd rather let him state his viewpoint than keep guessing at it. In Video 3 of his The Fascists that Surround You series, he says "I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment." But I'd still like more detail about this. I thought we were on the verge of getting that earlier in the thread, but now it just keeps growing beyond where TronCat and I were zeroing in on the issue.

 

 

"I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment"

Now what I want to know is if he means he's a social/environmental determinist (genes don't have any effect), or if hs admits genes have a role, but that envrionment has a larger role.

[Formelyknown]

The effect of genes doesn't determine the individual. The scientist who actually cloned animals which is a better way to judge genetic vs nurture then twins.They will tell you clones with identical genetic are all different in the way they behaves.

[TronCat]

 

The effect of genes doesn't determine the individual.

I never claimed they did; I said they have a significant effect. i'm not arguing for genetic determinism.

 

The scientist who actually cloned animals which is a better way to judge genetic vs nurture then twins.They will tell you clones with identical genetic are all different in the way they behaves.

Can you cite the study?

[thun]

The heritability statistic can not be used to claim something is genetic or not.

[TronCat]

 

The heritability statistic can not be used to claim something is genetic or not.

 

 

"Winick, Meyer, and Harris (1975) found 141 Korean
children adopted as infants by American families exceeded the national
average in both IQ and achievement scores when they reached 10 years of
age. The principal interest of the investigators was on the possible
effects of severe malnutrition on later intelligence, and many of these
Korean children had been malnourished in infancy. When tested, those who
had been severely malnourished as infants obtained a mean IQ of 102; a
moderately well-nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 106; and an
adequately nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 110....Neither the
social class of the adopting parents nor the number of years the child
spent in the adopted family had any effect on the child's IQ."

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf(P.250)

 

Even the severely malnourished Korean children went on to have an IQ above the national average in America.

[LovePrevails]

 

 

The heritability statistic can not be used to claim something is genetic or not.

 

 

"Winick, Meyer, and Harris (1975) found 141 Korean children adopted as infants by American families exceeded the national average in both IQ and achievement scores when they reached 10 years of age. The principal interest of the investigators was on the possible effects of severe malnutrition on later intelligence, and many of these Korean children had been malnourished in infancy. When tested, those who had been severely malnourished as infants obtained a mean IQ of 102; a moderately well-nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 106; and an adequately nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 110....Neither the social class of the adopting parents nor the number of years the child spent in the adopted family had any effect on the child's IQ."

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf(P.250)

 

Even the severely malnourished Korean children went on to have an IQ above the national average in America.

 

Type of households that adopt  children vs. the fact that any American can have a baby at any time with anyone they like even when the home environment is not productive for that child?

 

just a thought

[TheRobin]

TronCat, I have no problem accepting that there are a lot of things influenced by genetic predisposition, that is then accentuated (or not) by environment (like intelligence through proper or improper nutrition or height).But the only relevant aspect in regards to the topic of a peaceful society (and the one which I understand Stef makes) is that in the absence of abuse there won't be any possibility of the person growing up to be abusive.I would use the metaphor (however correct or not that may be) that even if there's a strong genetic predisposition towards enlarged brain-regions that make anger/absuive behaviour more likely and/or more often to occur, in teh absence of any environment that nourishes those predispositions it would still be zero. In the same way, that if you had a plant which would grow to be 2 meters tall and you don't give it water and fertilizer it won't grow at all.So do you have any studies that show that there isn't a correlation between amount of abuse and people becoming more aggressive themselves (cause the whole bib-series is basically one huge proof for exactly that correlation, which so far, you haven't adressed or refuted)

[LovePrevails]

 

Well that's 15 minutes of my life that yielded no utility whatsoever and I'll never see again. Woo!

 

 

Woo describes this thread. It's meaningless.

The self-described heriditatians exercising their emotional need to convinc others that they are right to absolutely no utilitarian ends.

 

 

Ye it's possible that, as some believe, a small percentage of the population are born genetic psyhopaths

 

 

Abd it make no odds whatsoever

 

Because the fact remains we can reduce violence by focusing on what we can change

 

No psychologist seriously suggests that the years in which people are being parented are not the most formative, everyone knows that.

 

Once we get the environmental factors right those with a generic defect for moral behavious (if the exist) will be transparent and easy to deal with.

 

Some seeds may be crap, but how do we know until we make good of all the soil so they have the best chance to grow.

I t takes the same smarts to think up ways to contribute to your own well being or the well being of others as it does to conduct this debate.

This dialogue is a waste of sharp brains.

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

 

 

In the meantime, unfortunately, this thread has continued to go on and on while what I and TronCat really wanted was to hear Stefan lay out his basic view on the parenting/violence & aggression relationship once and for all. The more the discussion moves on from that, the more I fear we waste our time having debates that would better wait for after he gives his viewpoint clearly so we're not arguing straw men.

I think he has too much invested in the "nurture is what we can control" message to concede anything.

 

Well I'd rather let him state his viewpoint than keep guessing at it. In Video 3 of his The Fascists that Surround You series, he says "I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment." But I'd still like more detail about this. I thought we were on the verge of getting that earlier in the thread, but now it just keeps growing beyond where TronCat and I were zeroing in on the issue.

 

 

"I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment"

Now what I want to know is if he means he's a social/environmental determinist (genes don't have any effect), or if hs admits genes have a role, but that envrionment has a larger role.

 

You have to work very very hard to come up with the interpretation that Stef argues that "genes don't have any effect." You have to ignore every dream interpretation that he's ever done, since he frequently refers to the power of the subconscious as an expression of shared biology. You have to ignore his theory on the origins of the belief in God. You have to ignore everything he's ever said about epigenetics. And you have to ignore his argument that freewill is an emergent property of enormously complex biological processes that are clearly based on genetics.

If you pretend he never said any of that for the last 7 years; if you completely drop the context of the history of FDR; then you can barely squeak by with the hint of a whisper that Stef might have suggested that its possible "genes don't have any effect."

But, let's pretend for a moment that he did say that. And let's hypothetically accept that he is wrong. Let's further accept he's not just a little off-the-mark, but he is in fact totally backwards. Let's hypothesize that all human aggression is an effect entirely controlled by fundamental genetic makeup. Let's imagine a world in which not only is violence an effect purely of biological determinism, no different than the color of a person's eyes or the shape of his nose, but we also have perfect knowledge of how to identify these biological patterns in any human, from fetus to deathbed.

What do you intend to do with that?

Obviously violence in society is still a problem, right? So now that you have a perfect and absolute measurement to determine that someone IS GOING TO BE violent, what do you do with that?

Do you intend to start breeding programs to weed out the genetic precursors to violence? How would you implement that?

Or maybe you could create a program of mandatory abortions for pregnancies where the fetus is identified as a future killer?

Or you could create a societal mashup of Gattaca and Minority Report, where the Pre-Psycho division of the police force constantly monitors everyone's genetic material and rounds up and imprisons violent people?

Unless you plan on implementing something like this, then it really makes no difference whether the origins of violence are only 1% environmental or 99% environmental -- because the environment is the only part that humans can control. You can't alter the genetic material in your 3 year old's body, but you can stop hitting, yelling at, and lying to your 3 year old. 

By focusing the question on biology, you focus on the thing you can't change. And so what good is having that answer?

Do you simply want to prove that violence is an inevitable and unavoidable aspect of society? If that's your belief, then do you hold true to your values in action? Do you use violence in your normal interactions with people? Do you walk into a store and simply take whatever you want and if you're confronted by someone, beat them until they get out of your way? If so, how's that working out for you? If not, why not? Why don't you live in accordance with your beliefs? Do you fear arrest and imprisonment? Surely you could simply explain to the police that your genetic makeup compelled you to beat the store clerk to a pulp. It's not your fault; it's your selfish genes that beat him, not your free will.

How about I propose an alternate theory for why you want to focus on the genetic basis for violence?

You see, if violence were caused purely by genetics, then it wouldn't be *anyone's* fault. It wouldn't be a matter of morality any more than skin color or the thickness of someone's hair. And if that were the case, then all the violence in the world; all the pain and cruelty we witness; all the abuse heaped upon you; all the abuse you've inflicted on others; all the misery that will ever be caused by one person aggressing against another -- ALL of it would be forgiven. All the moral questions around violence would simply vanish. Nobody would be evil any more. They would simply be.

Nothing would have to change. In fact, the problem of violence in society wouldn't even be a problem any more. We don't have a "problem of gravity in society," do we? It would simply be as inevitable as the tides. And no one would ever have to lift a finger to stop abuse and protect a victim.

What an enormous relief that would be!

So how can you get that relief? Well, one way might be to find someone who passionately and vigorously argues for volitional consciousness, non-aggression as a universal ethic, and the importance of peaceful relationships between all humans -- particularly between parents and children. Then you could prove him wrong. Sure you might have to completely mischaracterize his position in order to do that; perhaps by labeling him a "determinist" when he's published an ocean of material in support of free will; but so what? 

The important point is that if you can pin him against the wall and get him to confess that genes control behaviorial outcomes, ah then all weight can be lifted from your shoulders and all responsibility for the actions of people in society is whisked away in the cool breeze of genetic determinism. Nobody ever has to fear making moral choices again! 

What blessed, blessed relief!

I can see why you'd work so very very hard for it.

[thun]

 

 

The heritability statistic can not be used to claim something is genetic or not.

 

 

"Winick, Meyer, and Harris (1975) found 141 Korean
children adopted as infants by American families exceeded the national
average in both IQ and achievement scores when they reached 10 years of
age. The principal interest of the investigators was on the possible
effects of severe malnutrition on later intelligence, and many of these
Korean children had been malnourished in infancy. When tested, those who
had been severely malnourished as infants obtained a mean IQ of 102; a
moderately well-nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 106; and an
adequately nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 110....Neither the
social class of the adopting parents nor the number of years the child
spent in the adopted family had any effect on the child's IQ."

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf(P.250)

 

Even the severely malnourished Korean children went on to have an IQ above the national average in America.

 

 

I'm not making a point about nutrition, I'm making a point about what can and cannot be infered from the heritability statistic.

[TronCat]

 

 

 

 

In the meantime, unfortunately, this thread has continued to go on and on while what I and TronCat really wanted was to hear Stefan lay out his basic view on the parenting/violence & aggression relationship once and for all. The more the discussion moves on from that, the more I fear we waste our time having debates that would better wait for after he gives his viewpoint clearly so we're not arguing straw men.

I think he has too much invested in the "nurture is what we can control" message to concede anything.

 

Well I'd rather let him state his viewpoint than keep guessing at it. In Video 3 of his The Fascists that Surround You series, he says "I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment." But I'd still like more detail about this. I thought we were on the verge of getting that earlier in the thread, but now it just keeps growing beyond where TronCat and I were zeroing in on the issue.

 

 

"I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment"

Now what I want to know is if he means he's a social/environmental determinist (genes don't have any effect), or if hs admits genes have a role, but that envrionment has a larger role.

 

You have to work very very hard to come up with the interpretation that Stef argues that "genes don't have any effect." You have to ignore every dream interpretation that he's ever done, since he frequently refers to the power of the subconscious as an expression of shared biology. You have to ignore his theory on the origins of the belief in God. You have to ignore everything he's ever said about epigenetics. And you have to ignore his argument that freewill is an emergent property of enormously complex biological processes that are clearly based on genetics.

If you pretend he never said any of that for the last 7 years; if you completely drop the context of the history of FDR; then you can barely squeak by with the hint of a whisper that Stef might have suggested that its possible "genes don't have any effect."

But, let's pretend for a moment that he did say that. And let's hypothetically accept that he is wrong. Let's further accept he's not just a little off-the-mark, but he is in fact totally backwards. Let's hypothesize that all human aggression is an effect entirely controlled by fundamental genetic makeup. Let's imagine a world in which not only is violence an effect purely of biological determinism, no different than the color of a person's eyes or the shape of his nose, but we also have perfect knowledge of how to identify these biological patterns in any human, from fetus to deathbed.

What do you intend to do with that?

Obviously violence in society is still a problem, right? So now that you have a perfect and absolute measurement to determine that someone IS GOING TO BE violent, what do you do with that?

Do you intend to start breeding programs to weed out the genetic precursors to violence? How would you implement that?

Or maybe you could create a program of mandatory abortions for pregnancies where the fetus is identified as a future killer?

Or you could create a societal mashup of Gattaca and Minority Report, where the Pre-Psycho division of the police force constantly monitors everyone's genetic material and rounds up and imprisons violent people?

Unless you plan on implementing something like this, then it really makes no difference whether the origins of violence are only 1% environmental or 99% environmental -- because the environment is the only part that humans can control. You can't alter the genetic material in your 3 year old's body, but you can stop hitting, yelling at, and lying to your 3 year old. 

By focusing the question on biology, you focus on the thing you can't change. And so what good is having that answer?

Do you simply want to prove that violence is an inevitable and unavoidable aspect of society? If that's your belief, then do you hold true to your values in action? Do you use violence in your normal interactions with people? Do you walk into a store and simply take whatever you want and if you're confronted by someone, beat them until they get out of your way? If so, how's that working out for you? If not, why not? Why don't you live in accordance with your beliefs? Do you fear arrest and imprisonment? Surely you could simply explain to the police that your genetic makeup compelled you to beat the store clerk to a pulp. It's not your fault; it's your selfish genes that beat him, not your free will.

How about I propose an alternate theory for why you want to focus on the genetic basis for violence?

You see, if violence were caused purely by genetics, then it wouldn't be *anyone's* fault. It wouldn't be a matter of morality any more than skin color or the thickness of someone's hair. And if that were the case, then all the violence in the world; all the pain and cruelty we witness; all the abuse heaped upon you; all the abuse you've inflicted on others; all the misery that will ever be caused by one person aggressing against another -- ALL of it would be forgiven. All the moral questions around violence would simply vanish. Nobody would be evil any more. They would simply be.

Nothing would have to change. In fact, the problem of violence in society wouldn't even be a problem any more. We don't have a "problem of gravity in society," do we? It would simply be as inevitable as the tides. And no one would ever have to lift a finger to stop abuse and protect a victim.

What an enormous relief that would be!

So how can you get that relief? Well, one way might be to find someone who passionately and vigorously argues for volitional consciousness, non-aggression as a universal ethic, and the importance of peaceful relationships between all humans -- particularly between parents and children. Then you could prove him wrong. Sure you might have to completely mischaracterize his position in order to do that; perhaps by labeling him a "determinist" when he's published an ocean of material in support of free will; but so what? 

The important point is that if you can pin him against the wall and get him to confess that genes control behaviorial outcomes, ah then all weight can be lifted from your shoulders and all responsibility for the actions of people in society is whisked away in the cool breeze of genetic determinism. Nobody ever has to fear making moral choices again! 

What blessed, blessed relief!

I can see why you'd work so very very hard for it.

 

 

Aww, does natural selection scare you? Because it doesn't follow any particular morality you have come up with?

 

I don't exactly know what the future holds regarding this subject, but I know at least what I would like to do now, and that is to segregate the races and have them live in homogenous states/communities, to preserve themselves, and protect themselves.

[TronCat]

 

 

 

The heritability statistic can not be used to claim something is genetic or not.

 

 

"Winick, Meyer, and Harris (1975) found 141 Korean
children adopted as infants by American families exceeded the national
average in both IQ and achievement scores when they reached 10 years of
age. The principal interest of the investigators was on the possible
effects of severe malnutrition on later intelligence, and many of these
Korean children had been malnourished in infancy. When tested, those who
had been severely malnourished as infants obtained a mean IQ of 102; a
moderately well-nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 106; and an
adequately nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 110....Neither the
social class of the adopting parents nor the number of years the child
spent in the adopted family had any effect on the child's IQ."

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf(P.250)

 

Even the severely malnourished Korean children went on to have an IQ above the national average in America.

 

 

I'm not making a point about nutrition, I'm making a point about what can and cannot be infered from the heritability statistic.

 

You were making a point about nutrition, considering the differences the diagram displays is in nutrition. Regardless,  genes don't come
with labels. To infer if a gene is causing something, you must first
make a general heritability estimate and THEN estimate the effects of
the specific gene. It's the same methodology used for group heritability
differences, just at a smaller scale and with equipment that can
actually see the genes.