Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Kimmo
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:45 am UTC
Location: Australia

Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Kimmo » Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:38 pm UTC

Greetings and salutations.

For my first post on these boards, I find it hard to imagine offering a tastier morsel than this sumptuous bitch-slap to those who seek to justify their privileged status by snidely denigrating the potential of those less fortunate... a smackdown delivered by the very same field of endeavour that gave such turkeys an excuse to concoct the poisonous confection known as Social Darwinism.

It's just too delicious :mrgreen:

Why genes are leftwing
The right loves genetic explanations for poverty or mental illness. But science fingers society

Oliver James
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 October 2010 21.30 BST
Article history


When the map of the human genome was presented to the world in 2001, psychiatrists had high hopes for it. Itemising all our genes would surely provide molecular evidence that the main cause of mental illness was genetic – something psychiatrists had long believed. Drug companies were wetting their lips at the prospect of massive profits from unique potions for every idiosyncrasy.

But a decade later, unnoticed by the media, the human genome project has not delivered what the psychiatrists hoped: we now know that genes play little part in why one sibling, social class or ethnic group is more likely to suffer mental health problems than another.

This result had been predicted by Craig Venter, one of the key researchers on the project. When the map was published, he said that because we only have about 25,000 genes psychological differences could not be much determined by them. "Our environments are critical," he concluded. And, after only a few years of extensive genome searching, even the most convinced geneticists began to publicly admit that there are no individual genes for the vast majority of mental health problems. In 2009 Professor Robert Plomin, a leading behavioural geneticist, wrote that the evidence had proved that "genetic effects are much smaller than previously considered: the largest effects account for only 1% of quantitative traits". However, he believed that all was not lost. Complex combinations of genes might hold the key. So far, this has not been shown, nor is it likely to be.

This February's editorial of the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry was entitled "It's the environment, stupid!". The author, Edmund Sonuga-Barke, stated that "serious science is now more than ever focused on the power of the environment … all but the most dogged of genetic determinists have revised their view".

In Sonuga-Barke's own field, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, he observed that "even the most comprehensive genome-wide scans available, with thousands of patients using hundreds of thousands of genetic markers … appear to account for a relatively small proportion of disorder expression". Genes hardly explained at all why some children have ADHD and not others.

That was illustrated recently in a heavily publicised study by Anita Thapar, of Cardiff University. Although she claimed to have proved that ADHD is a "genetic disease", if anything, she proved the opposite. Only 16% of the children with ADHD in her study had the pattern of genes that she claimed causes the illness. Taken at face value, her study proved that non-genetic factors cause it in 8 out of 10 children.

Another theory was that genes create vulnerabilities. For example, it was thought that people with a particular gene variant were more likely to become depressed if they were maltreated as children. This also now looks unlikely. An analysis of 14,250 people showed that those with the variant were not at greater risk of depression. Nor were they more likely to be depressed when the variant was combined with childhood maltreatment.

In developed nations, women and those on a low income are twice as likely to be depressed as men and the wealthy. When DNA is tested in large samples, neither women nor the poor are more likely to have the variant. Worldwide, depression is least common in south-east Asia. Yet a study of 29 nations found the variant to be commonest there – the degree to which a society is collectivist rather than individualistic partly explains depression rates, not genes.

Politics may be the reason why the media has so far failed to report the small role of genes. The political right believes that genes largely explain why the poor are poor, as well as twice as likely as the rich to be mentally ill. To them, the poor are genetic mud, sinking to the bottom of the genetic pool.

Writing in 2000, the political scientist Charles Murray made a rash prediction he may now regret. "The story of human nature, as revealed by genetics and neuroscience, will be conservative in its political [shape]." The American poor would turn out to have significantly different genes to the affluent: "This is not unimaginable. It is almost certainly true." Almost certainly false, more like.

Instead, the Human Genome Project is rapidly providing a scientific basis for the political left. Childhood maltreatment, economic inequality and excessive materialism seem the main determinants of mental illness. State-sponsored interventions, like reduced inequality, are the most likely solutions.
Found via Boing Boing

So... what are the odds this finding will have any more impact on social policy than any number of other scientifically validated insights which contradict the assumptions inherent to so many dictates from on high...? Not great, I'm betting...

How many of us with our brains in gear does it take before the corporate sock-puppets we generally refer to as governments are forced to bow to the facts? Is that even a realistic possibility? Or is democracy utterly bankrupt?


I have approved this, but you obviously need to take a gander at the rules. That is all. -Rin

I did read the rules before posting, but evidently interpreted them a bit more loosely than perhaps I should...
Last edited by Kimmo on Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:18 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Vellyr
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:57 pm UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Vellyr » Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:29 am UTC

The political right believes that genes largely explain why the poor are poor, as well as twice as likely as the rich to be mentally ill. To them, the poor are genetic mud, sinking to the bottom of the genetic pool.


I think that instead of "the political right" he meant to say oh maybe...Nazis. That's certainly not what I or most right-wing voters believe. The philosophy is that people should be held responsible for the choices they make. If it was genetic, that argument wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Besides that, I thought it had been widely recognized for a while now that environmental influence plays a huge role in a person's development.

Instead, the Human Genome Project is rapidly providing a scientific basis for the political left. Childhood maltreatment, economic inequality and excessive materialism seem the main determinants of mental illness. State-sponsored interventions, like reduced inequality, are the most likely solutions.


I fail to see the connection here. The human genome project is certainly not proving any of those things directly. I'm totally with him on the childhood mistreatment, but he might want to expand on those last two points if he wants to sound credible. He's making some pretty bold claims there.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Vaniver » Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:02 am UTC

even the most convinced geneticists began to publicly admit that there are no individual genes for the vast majority of mental health problems.
Emphasis mine. This... is news?

"Guys, turns out that more than one out of 25,000 genes has to do with any particular bug in the rather complicated machinery that is the human mind. Who would have known?"

It's worth noting that this is primarily about psychology and psychological disorders. That those disorders are not genetic should not be surprising: note that those disorders are symptoms not causes. Pesticide poisoning looks like ADHD. How well do we understand non-pesticide poisoning ADHD if we can't tell the difference?


I don't know a single person who thinks depression is not impacted by environment. When sad things happen to people, they are more likely to be sad. No surprises there. What right and left wingers might actually differ over are things like "how much of intelligence is due to genes?" and the answer is "a lot" (which is, by the way, generally not the left wing position). The answer is obviously more complicated than five characters- it appears that the negative effects of poverty, among other things, reduce genetic variation- but the question of "why are some people smarter than others?" is far more relevant to public policy than "why are some people happier than others?".

It should also be mentioned that neither James nor the scientists he mention make any justification for their leap from "inequality causes depression" to "state-sponsored equality measures reduce depression." Might it be that government measures actually reduce psychic well-being, compared to private measures or no interventions? As well, how is evidence on genetic predispositions relevant to the questions of social organization? Whether or not it is morally or practically right to undertake a certain plan of action is generally independent of whether or not people are depressed because of their situation or their genes. If Prozac helps both someone going through hard times and someone with a biologically low set point, the central fact there is that Prozac helps them, not why they need Prozac.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Dark567 » Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:23 am UTC

Twin studies can show us a lot about the nature v. nurture debate, and most show that there is a significant amount of genetic influence on psychological traits.
wikipedia wrote:Modern twin studies have shown that almost all traits are in part influenced by genetic differences, with some characteristics showing a strong influence (e.g. height), others an intermediate level (e.g. IQ) and some more complex heritabilities, with evidence for different genes affecting different elements of the trait - for instance Autism.
The article you mention also lists controversial diseases(depression and ADHD, are both obviously affected heavily by environment), not the traits the right wing claim are important, such as IQ, which in fact has a relatively strong correlation to specific genetic patterns.
wikipedia wrote:Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5 to a high of 0.9.
Also, a nearly perfect study has been done on the nature vs. nurture debate, unfortunately the results are sealed until 2066, due to the ethics and controversy of the study(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=15629096). Maybe we can settle this then?
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

elasto
Posts: 3757
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby elasto » Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:37 am UTC

I've got two kids, two years apart in age, and they are totally different personalities with quite different likes and dislikes. There's no doubt in my mind that there are genetic factors at play.

Course, noone would ever say it's completely genetic either. Twins don't have identical personalities.

In short, I can't see how anyone whose mind could be changed by such an article would have it changed. They'd not hold that view to begin with...

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:45 am UTC

How exactly is Social Darwinism a right-wing movement? I thought the right-wing believed that everyone had a choice (e.g., homosexuality being a "preference" instead of hard-wired), rather than due to biology?

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby SummerGlauFan » Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:04 am UTC

Article wrote: But science fingers society



After that point I had trouble concentrating on the article. Darn it journalists, don't word things in distracting manners.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

++$_
Mo' Money
Posts: 2370
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:06 am UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby ++$_ » Fri Oct 15, 2010 7:14 am UTC

This isn't an issue that divides neatly across the left and right. It is true that Charles Murray is a rightist, and that he writes for the American Enterprise Institute, and that he wrote (in the article linked in the OP)
when we know the complete genetic story, it will turn out that the population below the poverty line in the United States has a configuration of the relevant genetic makeup that is significantly different from the configuration of the population above the poverty line. This is not unimaginable. It is almost certainly true. It is also almost certainly true that statistically significant distributions of biological makeup separate just about any other groups that show substantially different patterns of behavior.
But that doesn't mean that everyone on the right wing thinks this, or that no one on the left does, or that they draw the same conclusions from it.

EmptySet
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:33 am UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby EmptySet » Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:34 pm UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:
Article wrote: But science fingers society



After that point I had trouble concentrating on the article. Darn it journalists, don't word things in distracting manners.


Well, science is intellectually stimulating.

User avatar
Vieto
Posts: 1558
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:44 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Vieto » Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:05 pm UTC

EmptySet wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:
Article wrote: But science fingers society



After that point I had trouble concentrating on the article. Darn it journalists, don't word things in distracting manners.


Well, science is intellectually stimulating.


Well, it has to penetrate your mind first.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Xeio » Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:10 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:How exactly is Social Darwinism a right-wing movement? I thought the right-wing believed that everyone had a choice (e.g., homosexuality being a "preference" instead of hard-wired), rather than due to biology?
Well, being environmental rather than genetic doesn't mean you have a choice. Though I suppose you're right in that they like to conflate the two.

User avatar
Kimmo
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:45 am UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Kimmo » Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:11 pm UTC

Okay, I have to admit I failed to cast a critical eye over this piece due to my own bias...

It's certainly true that the right/left dichotomy is far too simplistic to be of much use; in fact I'm sure it gets in the way a great deal.

Dark567 wrote:The article you mention also lists controversial diseases(depression and ADHD, are both obviously affected heavily by environment), not the traits the right wing claim are important, such as IQ, which in fact has a relatively strong correlation to specific genetic patterns.
Ah, but does IQ strongly correlate to socio-economic status? It's probably not going out on a limb to state that those at either end of the spectrum ostensibly desire a meritocracy, but how rigorously are they prepared to pursue it, and by what means?

Also, intelligence isn't just a raw genetic capacity; it's an attitude and a set of tools which should be taught to everyone. Is anyone seriously about to suggest there's a society on Earth that adequately invests in human potential? I mean, look out the window. I see numerous institutions actively striving to make people stupider, and sadly education systems aren't that much of an exception.
Also, a nearly perfect study has been done on the nature vs. nurture debate, unfortunately the results are sealed until 2066, due to the ethics and controversy of the study(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=15629096). Maybe we can settle this then?
Wow, pretty dubious ethics behind that study... although it becomes a lot greyer when viewed from a utilitarian perspective. But certainly, that Neubauer is a prick for refusing to even apologise. I'm having a hard time understanding the justification for withholding the results; surely the human price paid warrants getting value for it, rather than several decades of nothing... I guess it's just Neubauer wanting to avoid the tar and feathers.

CorruptUser wrote:How exactly is Social Darwinism a right-wing movement? I thought the right-wing believed that everyone had a choice (e.g., homosexuality being a "preference" instead of hard-wired), rather than due to biology?
Leaving aside the fact such broad terminology as 'right wing' is bound to encompass a number of inconsistencies and contradictions, Social Darwinism especially refers to notions of struggle for existence being used to justify social policies which show no sympathy for those unable to support themselves (Wiki). Sounds pretty right-wing to me.


Thanks for the thought-provoking responses.

Duban
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:22 pm UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Duban » Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:19 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
wikipedia wrote:Modern twin studies have shown that almost all traits are in part influenced by genetic differences, with some characteristics showing a strong influence (e.g. height), others an intermediate level (e.g. IQ) and some more complex heritabilities, with evidence for different genes affecting different elements of the trait - for instance Autism.
The article you mention also lists controversial diseases(depression and ADHD, are both obviously affected heavily by environment), not the traits the right wing claim are important, such as IQ, which in fact has a relatively strong correlation to specific genetic patterns.

The problem is it's nearly impossible to distinguish "genetic patterns" from upbringing. Nature vs Nurture. While it's nearly impossible to deny that people who are successful are more likely to have successful children the fact is successful people are going to raise their children with the best facets of how they were raised.

I, presumably like most people on this board, have always been very intelligent and loved to learn new things like my parents. From a young age my parents have always encouraged me to learn, explore, and push the limits of what I could do. It's very clear that upbringing plays a huge part of how intelligent/successful someone is over their life but the same evidence isn't there for genetics.

I'm not saying genetics has no effect, but for the time being there’s no evidence suggesting genetics plays a roll in intelligence that can’t be attributed to upbringing. It’s not clear what part, if any, genetics plays.
It is not the gods I fear. No, It is those who claim to speak for them that concern me.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Dark567 » Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:26 pm UTC

Duban wrote:The problem is it's nearly impossible to distinguish "genetic patterns" from upbringing. Nature vs Nurture. While it's nearly impossible to deny that people who are successful are more likely to have successful children the fact is successful people are going to raise their children with the best facets of how they were raised.


But thats the point of twin studies. Finding people that are exactly genetically identical, that were separated at birth, raised in different environments(usually neither with biological parents) and then comparing them, to find out which traits are more influenced by environment or genetics. If over and over again, it is found that drastically different upbringings of identical twins result in the identical twins still having very similar traits, odds are, the upbringing is the smaller influence.

The results often point out a very strong trend in certain traits(i.e. height, obesity, certain mannerisms) to nature.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:40 pm UTC

Kimmo wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:How exactly is Social Darwinism a right-wing movement? I thought the right-wing believed that everyone had a choice (e.g., homosexuality being a "preference" instead of hard-wired), rather than due to biology?
Leaving aside the fact such broad terminology as 'right wing' is bound to encompass a number of inconsistencies and contradictions, Social Darwinism especially refers to notions of struggle for existence being used to justify social policies which show no sympathy for those unable to support themselves (Wiki). Sounds pretty right-wing to me.


I'm going to have to bring in the Nolan Chart, because I don't think you understand what "right" and "left" are.

Last I checked, the "right" believed in charity, strong religious values (which usually means charity), and so forth, where those who are unfortunate get help from their communities. However, even most "right-wingers" support foodstamps. Religion, which is for the most "right-wing", has always been more popular with the poor, as it often teaches that humbleness and humility will provide riches in the afterlife, while the people who are rich now will have nothing in the afterlife.

"Left" believes that the poor are the victims of society, so society should have to be taxed to provide welfare, where the poor are inherently entitled to all the wealth of whatever the society of the time defines as a "living wage".

Libertarians (and Objectivists), while (vehemently) opposed to welfare, could never support the government intrusions of private life that any Eugenics program would require. The government saying who you can or can't marry, sterilizations, telling you how many children you can have, subsidies for child rearing, are all in contradiction with Libertarian philosophy.

Which leads to the opposite of Libertarianism, Populism/Authoritarianism. Populism believes that strict control of the economy and personal life is necessary for the safety and wealth of all. Populism is the only one of the 4 groups that would ever have the necessary intrusions of personal life and the economy to be able to dictate whom is allowed to breed with whom, how many children you may have, and so forth.

For example, China, being the largest (by population) authoritarian state on the planet, is the one with the mandatory birth control policies. Contrary to belief, it is not a true crime in China to have more than one child; you merely lose all state benefits, which is huge since in a Communist country the state provides/redistributes nearly everything you have. Meaning, if you are rich/powerful, you can have as many children as you want, while the poor may only have 1 child. This is Social Darwinism in policy.

Moreover, I'm going to have to invoke Godwin's Law. Set as a spoiler, because it tends to start flame wars.
Spoiler:
The most vile form of Eugenics was practiced by whom? I believe it was the National SOCIALIST party, or in Deutsch, Nationalsozialismus. Socialism is the antithesis of right-wing, no matter how much propaganda you swallow.

elasto
Posts: 3757
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby elasto » Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:07 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:For example, China, being the largest (by population) authoritarian state on the planet, is the one with the mandatory birth control policies. Contrary to belief, it is not a true crime in China to have more than one child; you merely lose all state benefits, which is huge since in a Communist country the state provides/redistributes nearly everything you have. Meaning, if you are rich/powerful, you can have as many children as you want, while the poor may only have 1 child.
Just thought I'd correct this slightly - since the conclusion is mostly correct but the causation isn't (so far as I know):

Having more than one child in China isn't a crime but it will incur a big fine. In some regions, though, the fine is based on your income - so the rich are dissuaded as much as the poor. In most regions, though, the fine is fixed, so, yes, the rich can have as many as they want and the poor can't. It should be noted also, though, that there are a number of exceptions to the one-child law. For example, if both parents are themselves single children; or, in poorer regions, if the first child is a girl.

So far as I know, though, there are more or less no state benefits in China. Certainly nothing like what you'd get in the 'communist' USA or UK. That's why savings rates are so high in China, and why families mostly stick together to help each other out. And direct taxation is extremely low (although indirect taxes such as import duties can be high); The state provides/redistributes almost nothing of what you have. And that's without even taking into account the fact that most of the internal economy is grey/black and untaxed.

China is communist in name only, really. Economically it's basically a libertarian's wet dream. It's only politically and, to an extent, socially that it's totalitarian.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Dark567 » Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:22 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
China is communist in name only, really. Economically it's basically a libertarian's wet dream. It's only politically and, to an extent, socially that it's totalitarian.

Ehh, government owned banking and some other government owned industries probably would stretch it outside the wet dream area. Hong Kong is probably a better example.(Granted it is technically part of China, but One state, two systems, and all that jazz)
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Diadem » Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:31 pm UTC

right wing: People are entirely defined by their environment, so we should make sure they have plenty of incentive to improve themselves
left wing: People are entirely defined by their genes, so we should take pity on people who have problems, they can't help it.

right wing: People are entirely defined by their genes, so we can't improve people, so let's not waste money trying
left wing: People are entirely defined by their environment, so we should helpe people who have problems so they can improve their lot

Either position is logically defendable from either side of the political spectrum. So linking one with the other is BS.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Griffin » Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:15 pm UTC

The nature vs. nurture debate always reminded me of two people arguing whether it was guns that killed people, or bullets.

"bullets!" "guns!"
"Look, we did a study where two people had the EXACT same guns! But we took one of their bullets away. The person with bullets killed people, the person without didn't. Its pretty clearcut - bullets are the culprit! Not only do guns not play a role, you don't even know what part of the gun WOULD!"
"Well, we removed the trigger, set up our test with one guy shooting another, and noone died, so I'm pretty sure we can say with one hundred percent certainty that the trigger is the cause of people dying! Bullets or no bullets, without the trigger there was no death!"
"Well, we found that with certain models of rifle, you can remove the trigger and then bang it with a rock and the bullet will still kill someone. So obviously triggers have nothing to do with people dying, and your study was wrong!"
"No, look. We developed a study where we removed the bullets. And we showed you can still beat someone to death with the gun! So obviously bullets don't kill people, guns do! Sure, maybe you don't need the trigger, you you still need the gun!"
and so on

In summary, it has nothing do with political parties. Its just stupid people having a stupid fight.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

engr
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:08 am UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby engr » Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:26 pm UTC

So, they took depression and ADHD (which seem to be over-diagnosed in the US), and from this they conclude genes play no role in mental illness, not even predisposing.
How do they explain the studies which describe risk of schizophrenia, OCD, bipolar disorder, etc. in fraternal vs. identical twins?
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. Gilbert K. Chesterton

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby netcrusher88 » Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:43 pm UTC

Diadem nailed it. This doesn't make sense as applied to left wing/right wing politics. Sorry BoingBoing.

Confidential to CorruptUser: you're a fuckwit and your spoiler wasn't worth the energy it took to click the Show button. Oh my bad, this is a public post. No matter.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

++$_
Mo' Money
Posts: 2370
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:06 am UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby ++$_ » Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:27 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:The most vile form of Eugenics was practiced by whom? I believe it was the National SOCIALIST party, or in Deutsch, Nationalsozialismus. Socialism is the antithesis of right-wing, no matter how much propaganda you swallow.
Next you're going to tell me that the DPRK is actually democratic.

User avatar
Kimmo
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:45 am UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Kimmo » Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:04 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I'm going to have to bring in the Nolan Chart, because I don't think you understand what "right" and "left" are.

You actually think there's any call to be so condescending?

Pff, is all I have for you, pal. Oh yeah, nice invocation of Godwin, BTW :roll:

Diadem wrote:right wing: People are entirely defined by their environment, so we should make sure they have plenty of incentive to improve themselves
left wing: People are entirely defined by their genes, so we should take pity on people who have problems, they can't help it.

right wing: People are entirely defined by their genes, so we can't improve people, so let's not waste money trying
left wing: People are entirely defined by their environment, so we should helpe people who have problems so they can improve their lot

Either position is logically defendable from either side of the political spectrum. So linking one with the other is BS.

I concur; /thread

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:12 am UTC

Kimmo wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:I'm going to have to bring in the Nolan Chart, because I don't think you understand what "right" and "left" are.

You actually think there's any call to be so condescending?

Pff, is all I have for you, pal. Oh yeah, nice invocation of Godwin, BTW :roll:


How would you feel if I were to say that the nutjobs at Westboro Baptist represent anyone that has a religion? Or that a few idiots in Hollywood talking about anthropogenic climate change represent everyone talking about APG? Would you think I was not only making broad generalizations, but completely wrong generalizations? Considering that you have lumped all racists/eugenicists/social-darwnists in with "right wing", I think there is plenty of call to be condescending.

Oh yes there are racists within the right wing, but they exist in the left too. You don't need to be a cynic to be suspicious about any ulterior motives of a party that wants to provide free abortions for inner city neighborhoods...

By the way, I actually consider myself to be a Liberal -European interpretation of the word, not American.



Again, with Godwin's law, please keep it in spoilers...

Spoiler:
++$_ wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:The most vile form of Eugenics was practiced by whom? I believe it was the National SOCIALIST party, or in Deutsch, Nationalsozialismus. Socialism is the antithesis of right-wing, no matter how much propaganda you swallow.
Next you're going to tell me that the DPRK is actually democratic.


Considering that

1) the vast majority of the economy was state controlled
2) Nazi Germany was the first modern country to have universal healthcare
3) the Nazi's greatly expanded public education

I'd say that Nazism was socialism. Horrible version of socialism, in much the same way Iraq is a democracy.

As for the DPRK, it got its name when democracy meant "good", so it called itself "good", despite being a dictatorship. The National Socialist party got its name because the people involved wanted, well, socialism with strong nation oversight.

User avatar
Kimmo
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:45 am UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Kimmo » Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:36 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Considering that you have lumped all racists/eugenicists/social-darwnists in with "right wing", I think there is plenty of call to be condescending.

I already acknowledged I got a bit carried away in the OP before you decided to piss on me... and you did so ignoring the fact that these definitions rapidly become debatable when used in any but the loosest sense.

Sorry, but I still don't feel inclined to invest much effort in responding to you.

Tell you what, why don't you describe what a Social Darwinist leftie looks like...

User avatar
Sockmonkey
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Sockmonkey » Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:55 am UTC

They didn't seal the records till 2066 because the results are shocking. It's so everyone involved will be dead so nobody can get sued or go to jail.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:42 am UTC

Kimmo wrote:Tell you what, why don't you describe what a Social Darwinist leftie looks like...


Indistinguishable from other humans, being that "leftists" and "rightists" are of the same species, exist in all ethnic groups, of both genders, and there are no (known) genes that cause someone to be "left" or "right", at least according to the article you brought up.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Diadem » Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:06 am UTC

On the wikipedia page about left-right wing politics there used to be a list of all the different definitions of left vs. right that have been used over the years. That seems to have disappeared though, strangely enough. Anyway, that list did nicely demonstrate that the terms have been used in a great many, often contradictionary, ways over the years, and are essentionally useless because of it.

Debating what is left and what is right is very pointless.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

quantumcat42
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:06 pm UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby quantumcat42 » Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:11 am UTC

Kimmo wrote:You actually think there's any call to be so condescending?

Are... are you serious?

...Is this funny to anyone else?

User avatar
Kimmo
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:45 am UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Kimmo » Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:17 am UTC

Hey, I'm sure it is.

I don't have a problem with having my views challenged; otherwise I'd just fap over this article in private.

But I have very little interest in playing infantile ego games.

quantumcat42
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:06 pm UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby quantumcat42 » Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:36 am UTC

Who's playing ego games? I was just appreciating the irony. Carry on with your scrumptious bitch-slap...

User avatar
Kimmo
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:45 am UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Kimmo » Sat Oct 16, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Well, that last was either patently disingenuous, or ignorant of the fact I distanced myself from said attempted bitchslap as soon as I was prompted to reconsider; either way, you're obviously in a bit of a hurry to hang shit.

You can continue trying to score cheap points by all means, but I was under the impression empty ad hominem was frowned upon around here...

User avatar
Marbas
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:01 am UTC
Location: Down down down at the bottom of the sea
Contact:

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Marbas » Sat Oct 16, 2010 9:47 pm UTC

quantumcat42 wrote:
Kimmo wrote:You actually think there's any call to be so condescending?

Are... are you serious?

...Is this funny to anyone else?


Yes, very funny.
Jahoclave wrote:Do you have any idea how much more fun the holocaust is with "Git er Done" as the catch phrase?

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:09 pm UTC

Kimmo wrote:Tell you what, why don't you describe what a Social Darwinist leftie looks like...

Ever heard of eugenics? The progressive movement and Social Darwinism were closely tied for some time. (as you and others have already said though, it's a moot point to either side in the modern world)

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby General_Norris » Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:13 pm UTC

Kimmo wrote:I already acknowledged I got a bit carried away in the OP before you decided to piss on me...

He only answered your position. He was polite and you are all hands up the air, saying how he "decided to piss" on you. Being told you are wrong is not the same as being insulting or condenscending.

Oh, wait, now are you going to say that I'm "scoring cheap points" like half of the people in this thread. Too bad.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby The Reaper » Sun Oct 17, 2010 5:15 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:
Kimmo wrote:I already acknowledged I got a bit carried away in the OP before you decided to piss on me...

He only answered your position. He was polite and you are all hands up the air, saying how he "decided to piss" on you. Being told you are wrong is not the same as being insulting or condenscending.

Oh, wait, now are you going to say that I'm "scoring cheap points" like half of the people in this thread. Too bad.

The first part is a valid point, the second part is you scoring cheap points. :3

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby General_Norris » Sun Oct 17, 2010 5:44 pm UTC

The Reaper wrote:The first part is a valid point, the second part is you scoring cheap points. :3

Sorry, I couldn't resist XD

User avatar
Kimmo
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:45 am UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Kimmo » Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:26 am UTC

I'd try to tiptoe out of this thread, but the floor's too sticky now...

Anyone who still gives a shit about the actual topic should prolly take it here

User avatar
smw543
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:45 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby smw543 » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:13 am UTC

Jumping on the OT bandwagon:
Kimmo wrote:I don't have a problem with having my views challenged; otherwise I'd just fap over this article in private.
Kimmo wrote:I'd try to tiptoe out of this thread, but the floor's too sticky now...
Well, whose fault is that? :P

Joking aside, as indicated many times ITT, the accurate parts of this article (certain traits aren't monogenic, etc.) are old news, and the rest is wrong and/or misleading (seriously, just Google "twin studies+[any psychological trait or condition]"). And as Diadem pointed out, evidence towards nature or nurture can be used by anyone1, so I don't see what makes this fap-worthy.

1In fact, my experience is that liberals tend to prefer genetic determinism, though I suppose it might be different in Oz.
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Now you know the difference between funny and sad.
Ubik wrote:But I'm too fond of the penis to let it go.
gmalivuk wrote:If you didn't want people to 'mis'understand you, then you probably should have tried saying something less stupid.

User avatar
Kimmo
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:45 am UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Right wing perspective taking a hit from genetics

Postby Kimmo » Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:08 am UTC

*sigh*

Would it help if I repeated myself?

Kimmo wrote:Okay, I have to admit I failed to cast a critical eye over this piece due to my own bias...


Seriously, how much fucking capitulation is enough.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bbluewi, Dauric and 9 guests