Has that been tested by adoptive studies? Like, it's not that they picked up the same habits from their parents type of heritable, but they learned it even spending their entire lives in a different sort of environment heritable?
I'd like to see those studies.
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:42 pm
by Malcolm
thibodeaux wrote:Social behavior has a very strong genetic component. Japanese act Japanese in part because of their genes. Ditto whites. Ditto blacks. I didn't want to believe it either, but it's pretty undeniable. Things like IQ, "big five" personality traits, time preference, etc. are all quite heritable (maybe 50%) and are all big contributors to how a person behaves in society.
That's not to say culture isn't PART of the equation. But it's not the entire thing.
A few things:
1. Just because it is heritable doesn't necessarily mean it's a guaranteed pass to the next generation. I've seen smart parents with kids dumber than a fucking piece of plywood.
2. If social behaviour gets dictated by genetics, than all the uprisings in history occur when the here and now trump any and all genetics. Revolutions are war on status quo society.
3. Will I argue some people are expected to outperform their peers based on genetic stock? Oh hell, no. Some even do it. Lots of them fall flat on their faces.
4. Even if one generation inherits these traits, it's entirely possible that environmental factors will kill any chance for development.
I'll give you that genetics figure into part of it, but I'm not giving it the dominant part, nor am I even giving it a significant part. I'd say culture and, hell, even random chance figure into a larger part of things.
Edited By Malcolm on 1360719867
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:15 am
by thibodeaux
TPRJones wrote:Has that been tested by adoptive studies? Like, it's not that they picked up the same habits from their parents type of heritable, but they learned it even spending their entire lives in a different sort of environment heritable?
I'd like to see those studies.
I believe so, yes.
First Law. All human behavioral traits are heritable.
The First Law emerges from studies of twins, studies of adoptees, and (now) sibling genetic similarity studies. In short, when you look at people’s behavior, virtually without exception (with a few important ones which I’ll soon discuss), you find some effect of the genes on these traits. That is, identical twins reared apart are similar; identical twins are more similar than fraternal twins; biological siblings are more similar than adoptive siblings; siblings who share more DNA are more similar than those who share less. This is not just in the most talked about trait in HBD, IQ, nor is it just in broad personality traits (whether it be the on the Big Five, on the HEXACO, or on whatever model you want to use), but in one’s religious inclination, one’s political views (including one’s thoughts on topics such as abortion, the death penalty, or welfare), career/educational interests, even one’s degree of thinness/fatness (one’s body mass index, or BMI, which is actually 80% heritable, as heritable as height or IQ).
I met some half-siblings recently that I hadn't seen in over 20 years. They were raised by my biological father, who I also hadn't seen in over 20 years.
They said I had the exact same mannerisms as him, even the way I sat while we were having lunch and talking.
So that was weird. Suggests strong genetic influence.
Won't matter. Only matters what Obama says, and Obama says we have a gun problem. Marching orders have been given.
Edited By GORDON on 1360857711
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:13 am
by Troy
Totally off topic, but Biden looked like some kind of Pimp with the purple tie/glasses combo at the SotU. It was excellent.
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:16 pm
by TPRJones
GORDON wrote:Suggests strong genetic influence.
Unless you are about 21 years old, not necessarily. It could also suggest that those mannerisms are developed during early childhood, at a time when you were still within his sphere of influence.
I'm not done reading through thib's link yet, though.
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:17 pm
by GORDON
Would have been VERY early childhood, up to about 6 months old.
Lanza was diagnosed as a young boy with sensory integration disorder, according to the Hartford Courant report. The disorder made it difficult for him to manage sights, sounds, smells, noise and pain.
So, difficulty with ... everything?
His mother tried to lessen his struggles with the disorder by informing others to prevent any difficult interactions.
Good job protecting him from all that difficulty that is encountered in reality. I'm sure it meant he had ample good judgement built up from his own trial-and-error experiences when it came time for him to make up his own mind.
HB69 states, in part: “A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is possessed in this state or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains in the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce as those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.”
The "in this state" part is interesting. The more interesting part is the registration exemption, which would fall like a house of cards if the feds wanted to call their bluff.
That's mainly because this...
“The authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition possessed in this state or made in this state from those materials. Firearm accessories that are imported into this state from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in this state."
... doesn't work. Replace every mention of guns with drugs or alcohol or tobacco (same thing).
Edited By Malcolm on 1361986452
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:43 pm
by TPRJones
Technically they are well within their rights here, if you go by the Constitution.
But then 90%+ of the federal government is technically unconstitutional, so that doesn't really seem to matter much.
EDIT: Especially when you consider the that "interstate commerce clause" is badly misunderstood. "To regulate Commerce ... among the several States ..." was intended to mean regulating interactions between state governments, not to give the federal government power over every transaction that happens to cross a state boundary.
Another state whose balls will retract when their federal corn subsidies are threatened.
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:35 am
by Leisher
Interesting interview on gun control with a former secret service agent:
<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
