What is O'ism's view on behavioural genetics?

[DarkReaver13]

I have been arguing against racists on a particular well known white nationalist website and I was wondering what people here believe is the best way of arguing against ideas of genetic determinism.

I consider myself an Objectivist and so I believe in the tabula rasa principle; that we have no inherited ideas or knowledge.

They make statments such as:

Choices are contingent on ones ability to rationalize. Reason is heavily influenced by one cognitive abilities. Psychologists have found that in children that at least 50% of cognition is genetic, but later in adults genes account for 80% of the cognitive abilities.

and

As I said earlier it is now recognized that the child of a person with addictive genes has an increased chance of having an addictive personality, and addictive genes themselves.

I have read about a study on twins seperated at birth. When they were given a kind of personality test they were remarkably similar, and had IQ scores differing by only 1 point.

Is Objectivism dependant on behavioural genetics being false?

Edited June 2, 2005 by DarkReaver13

[Hal]

There's certainly nothing to prevent different groups of people from having genetically different cognitive abiliies, but as far as I know there is no evidence to suggest that there are any such differences to be found along the traditional lines of race. However, it wouldnt make the slightest bit of difference even if there were - if a person were to belong to a race which turned out to be 'inferior' in some regard, it would be collectivism of the most disgusting kind to assert that this somehow tarnished whatever abilities he personally possessed - the fact that most white people suck at basketball is irrelevant when it comes to assessing the abilities of a particular talented white basketball player.

edit: Assuming you mean SF, most of the people there are loons so yeah, good luck with that.

Edited June 2, 2005 by Hal

[softwareNerd]

Reason is heavily influenced by one cognitive abilities.

What was that again? Reason is heavily influenced by reasoning ability? As in "running is heavily influenced by running ability"?

Psychologists have found that in children that at least 50% of cognition is genetic, but later in adults genes account for 80% of the cognitive abilities.

And from this they conclude... what? That one should use IQ test rather than skin color, to determine which individuals are smart? That I should only employ Asians as school teachers? [As an 'Asian' myself, I'm allowed that comment .]

More importantly, DarkReaver13, why would you spend your time arguing with someone like that? Is it your judgement that they are using false ideas to arrive at wrong conclusions, or that they are seeking rationalizations for their pre-formed conclusions? Seriously, you would be far better served trying to convert a couple of your old commie friends than trying the same thing with avowed racists.

Use their own "class probability is the intellectual razor" reasoning to write them all off as a bunch of brown-shirted goons!

[BurgessLau]

 

I have been arguing against racists on a particular well known white nationalist website and I was wondering what people here believe is the best way of arguing against ideas of genetic determinism. [...] 

 

Is Objectivism dependant on behavioural genetics being false? 

 

I too would wonder why you are spending time arguing with irrationalists. I would ask myself in such a situation:

- What do I expect to gain from this that will help me reach my ultimate purpose in life, my happiness?

- How does my effort here fit into my hierarchy of values?

Of course, if your central purpose in life is to understand and work against racists, then "debating" such miscreants might make sense. It could be a way of finding out how their minds work, if at all, and what kind of arguments they use.

In answer to your second question, keep in mind that all sciences -- including genetics -- depend on philosophy, not the other way around. An objective philosophy -- that is, one developed by looking around, thinking, and applying logic to one's thoughts -- is the foundation of specialized sciences. Philosophers can assess specialized scientific conclusions for their consistency with philosophical principles; but no specialized scientific conclusion can ever refute an objective philosophical principle.

[BurgessLau]

What was that again? Reason is heavily influenced by reasoning ability? As in "running is heavily influenced by running ability"?

The racist's statement would make "sense" if by "cognitive abilities" he meant inherited mental power. Then he would be saying (as I have heard from the more sophisticated racists) that one's ability to reason depends on the power of the motor one starts with.

I have learned also that, for many people, "reason" refers to a very narrow fact: the ability to think about "pure" subjects: mathematics, for example, not farming, or creating a sculpture. In other words, many intellectuals today still use "reason" to mean rationalism (in its worst form).

[gags]

Psychologists have found that in children that at least 50% of cognition is genetic, but later in adults genes account for 80% of the cognitive abilities.

I'm not aware of these studies and the "science" behind them. How would one objectively come to such conclusions? Perhaps you can give me a link or cite one?

Also, I just saw on the news that a young boy who appears to be of Indian (from India, not "Native American") descent just won the national spelling bee. Over the years, I've noticed that many of the finalists in these competitions tend to be Indians. You might ask the Racists if this means that Indians have some sort of superior spelling gene not possessed by white people? I doubt it.

It would seem that culture, an emphasis on learning from an early age, and mental discipline play much more important roles than genetics, when it comes to winning spelling bees.

[DarkReaver13]

There's certainly nothing to prevent different groups of people from having genetically different cognitive abiliies, but as far as I know there is no evidence to suggest that there are any such differences to be found along the traditional lines of race. However, it wouldnt make the slightest bit of difference even if there were - if a person were to belong to a race which turned out to be 'inferior' in some regard, it would be collectivism of the most disgusting kind to assert that this somehow tarnished whatever abilities he personally possessed - the fact that most white people suck at basketball is irrelevant when it comes to assessing the abilities of a particular talented white basketball player.

This is what I have been arguing, yes. I was inspired by Rand's chapter on racism in The Virtue of Selfishness. It's just the science that they refer to which I am wondering about; whether genetics really do have a large role in behaviour and one's actions.

edit: Assuming you mean SF, most of the people there are loons so yeah, good luck with that

Hehe spot on. Thanks.

[DarkReaver13]

More importantly, DarkReaver13, why would you spend your time arguing with someone like that? Is it your judgement that they are using false ideas to arrive at wrong conclusions, or that they are seeking rationalizations for their pre-formed conclusions? Seriously, you would be far better served trying to convert a couple of your old commie friends than trying the same thing with avowed racists.

Use their own "class probability is the intellectual razor" reasoning to write them all off as a bunch of brown-shirted goons!

Hah, well; to be honest it is firstly and mainly because I only recently became an Objectivist and I felt like putting my knowledge into practice; to help me make more sense of the philosophy. The second reason would be because I take personal offense to their views; having a Chinese girlfriend.

[DarkReaver13]

Of course, if your central purpose in life is to understand and work against racists, then "debating" such miscreants might make sense. It could be a way of finding out how their minds work, if at all, and what kind of arguments they use.

Well I explained my reasons in my response to softwareNerd. It bascially gives me somewhere to make "practical" use of my knowledge of Objectivism, to solidify my beliefs. I get enjoyment out of doing so.

In answer to your second question, keep in mind that all sciences -- including genetics -- depend on philosophy, not the other way around. An objective philosophy -- that is, one developed by looking around, thinking, and applying logic to one's thoughts -- is the foundation of specialized sciences. Philosophers can assess specialized scientific conclusions for their consistency with philosophical principles; but no specialized scientific conclusion can ever refute an objective philosophical principle.

Indeed, but if it is proven that our personalities are so heavily influenced by chemicals, surely this raises serious questions about Objectivism? Obviously none of the genetics stuff they proclaim has been irrefuteably proven or has been agreed upon by the scientific community yet, but it did concern me.

[DarkReaver13]

I'm not aware of these studies and the "science" behind them. How would one objectively come to such conclusions? Perhaps you can give me a link or cite one?

Also, I just saw on the news that a young boy who appears to be of Indian (from India, not "Native American") descent just won the national spelling bee. Over the years, I've noticed that many of the finalists in these competitions tend to be Indians. You might ask the Racists if this means that Indians have some sort of superior spelling gene not possessed by white people? I doubt it.

It would seem that culture, an emphasis on learning from an early age, and mental discipline play much more important roles than genetics, when it comes to winning spelling bees.

I also believe learning has a far greater influence, but only based on my own observations and introspection.

I'll try to find the study I mentioned for you to have a look at.

[buiq]

In discussing genetic determinism, are you aware of Dr. John Money's research on the famous John/Joan case?

In 1965, the parents of twin boys brought their children to a doctor to have the boys circumcise for they had phimosis. The procedure went wrong and one of the boys penis was burned so badly and it could not be repaired. Subsequently, the parents saw Dr. Money on TV and took the child to see him at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. Dr. Money persuaded the parents to raise the injured boy as a girl. He reasoned that nurture and not nature determines a child's gender. With his twin brother, this was a grand opportunity to study sex assignment. To make a long story short, the injured boy was raised as a girl, received hormonal shots...etc but never accepted the intended sex assignment. The injured boy grew up did not fit into society as a girl. He attempted suicide three times. Finally, he abandoned all treatment. Many years later, the truth was told to him. You may read a brief story of him at the link below. A book was also written about him.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/reimer/

The point I am trying to make here is that biology does exert a significant force in behaviour, especially in this particular case, sex assignment. The boy was raised as a girl but never accepted the assignment of his sexual identity.

With that being said, I do not agree that alcoholics or obese people should blame their alcoholism or obesity on their genes.

[DarkReaver13]

The point I am trying to make here is that biology does exert a significant force in behaviour, especially in this particular case, sex assignment. The boy was raised as a girl but never accepted the assignment of his sexual identity.

With that being said, I do not agree that alcoholics or obese people should blame their alcoholism or obesity on their genes.

Well males and females may have slightly different brain biology yes. Does this really have such an influence on one's behaviour? What examples are there of "feminine" or "masculine" behaviour and how are they caused without knowledge or hormones (since (s)he received hormonal shots in the study)? Could the "not fitting in" have been as a result of the knowledge that obviously something was wrong, that (s)he was different to everyone else?

[gags]

I'll try to find the study I mentioned for you to have a look at.

OK, thanks.

[buiq]

Well males and females may have slightly different brain biology yes. Does this really have such an influence on one's behaviour? What examples are there of "feminine" or "masculine" behaviour and how are they caused without knowledge or hormones (since (s)he received hormonal shots in the study)? Could the "not fitting in" have been as a result of the knowledge that obviously something was wrong, that (s)he was different to everyone else?

In the John/Joan case, the answer is yes that different brain biology does influence behavior. As chronicled in the book, the child was dressed as a girl, provided toys typically for girls, and raised as a typical girl. This child did not like any of the feminine clothing and prefer playing with toys typical for boys. The child was much more aggressive than the girls attend school with and often involved in fights...etc. He preferred physical activities much more than other girls. Interestingly, the boy preferred to pee standing and this horrified the family and teachers. The child never felt that he was a girl despite the efforts from the parents and Dr. Money's treatment.

The "not fitting in" was as a result of the knowledge of something was wrong as you states was not the case. The child was raised a a girl and everyone treated him as a girl. There was no out side knowledge provided to him. Introspectively, the child knew something was wrong but did not know why or what caused this feeling.

It may be of interest if you read on the John/Joan case or the book on David Reimer. It is a good book. The Boy raised as a Girl: As Nature Made Him by John Colapinto Harper/Collins, 2000.

As an aside, in the mid 1960s and early 1970s, the feminist movement used Dr. Money's published articles that claimed gender assignment was a success as a platform for their cause. Currently, the gay community use the same case and others (because of the failure of gender assignment) as the basis to argue that gays are born that way.

[JMeganSnow]

I have also read significant research indicating that girls exposed to excessive testosterone in the womb will "act like" boys, regardless of whether they become lesbians or not.

Research in the humanities (especially psychology and sociology) is a huge mess, and since humans are so incredibly unique, it's likely you could find an individual to justify just about any kind of theory.

[Cole]

Psychologists have found that in children that at least 50% of cognition is genetic, but later in adults genes account for 80% of the cognitive abilities.

I don't understand the assertion. What does "50% of cognition is genetic" mean, specifically? Is he refering to IQ scores? Nevertheless, I'd be interested in seeing a study proving that.

This reminds me of an article attempting to prove hereditary differences among races by using only one source- an encyclopedia from 1932.

...and had IQ scores differing by only 1 point.

For the record- the difference in their IQ scores was more than one point. The one point difference is in regard to an specific index created to compare the IQ scores of two people- not the scores themselves.

Is Objectivism dependant on behavioural genetics being false?

To an extent, yes. Objectivism holds that volition is an attribute of man. Objectivism doesn't reject the idea that genetics influence cognition and behavior. It rejects the idea(s) that behavior is determined by either genetics or environment (i.e; Skinnerist behaviorism) and that humans do not truly make choices. Identifying man as volitional is essential to Objectivism.

[Cole]

There's certainly nothing to prevent different groups of people from having genetically different cognitive abiliies, but as far as I know there is no evidence to suggest that there are any such differences to be found along the traditional lines of race.

Actually, it seems to be commonly-accepted knowledge among those studying IQ that there are distinct differences among racial lines. The disagreement is on whether or not this is due to environmental factors or genetics.

However, it wouldnt make the slightest bit of difference even if there were - if a person were to belong to a race which turned out to be 'inferior' in some regard, it would be collectivism of the most disgusting kind to assert that this somehow tarnished whatever abilities he personally possessed - the fact that most white people suck at basketball is irrelevant when it comes to assessing the abilities of a particular talented white basketball player.

Right, but there is plenty of evidence to show that IQ score is positively correlated with success in life. The is what the book The Bell Curve was really attempting to prove. The race controversy just got in the way of that.

[Hal]

Actually, it seems to be commonly-accepted knowledge among those studying IQ that there are distinct differences among racial lines.

I would hold that IQ tests are almost entirely worthless when used for anything other than their intended purpose - testing to see whether young children are "mentally handicapped". Even if they had significance, you couldnt even begin to prove that any differences werent entirely a result of cultural factors. Edited June 8, 2005 by Hal

[Cole]

Have you looked into the finding published in the book The Bell Curve? The American Psychological Association put together a committee to investigate the claims in the book and concluded that many of them are accurate. In addition to race, there are distinct differences in IQ averages when occupations are compared (i.e; janitors to lawyers). I think it's been well-proven that IQ score is positively correlated to factors indicating success in life. Again, the question is regarding to which extent it is influenced by genes and/or environment. I certainly never said that it is entirely or primarily genetic.