Those studies were incredibly confusingly written, could you make them easier to understand somehow? I’m aware of literature, but no, you’re right, I’m…
Right. Yeah. So what’s going on here is you were oblivious to the research in behavioural genetics and are subsequently puzzled by the data. That’s become beside the issue and was to be expected. The dispute is now that you’re disagreeing with the framework under discussion, I know why you disagree, but on no grounds have you shown why your point of view is at all relevant. You continue to use this casual know-nothingness as the basis of your recurring arguments for why you *think* you can question the data based entirely off of nothing other than the usual trenchant reality denial typical of liberals.
Clearly, there is only one of us speaking with insight and citing objective peer-reviewed scientific papers. You don’t like the results, so you conveniently dismiss them as racist - again, with neither an informed opinion nor objective evidence to support this.
Let’s be clear, for virtually every single behavioural trait ever documented among human beings is heritable, this enough for us to acknowledge that no two humans are alike in behaviour. Yes, the behavioural and physical traits of people are context-dependent. The broad environmental context regulates the expression of the genes. Yes, there is not a dichotomy between genes and “environment.” But you’re not aware, by any stretch of the imagination, how this manipulation works over the entire human genome. And this is implying that you’re even acknowledge the impact of genetics at large. For instance, you start from the premise that long-standing group differences and attitudes towards "outgroup" individuals can be substantially subverted and removed by some sort of non-genetic manipulation, and this is why you’re wrong.
In the West at large, there is a legal mandate to eliminate any such racial ability and/or achievement gaps, as well as to eliminate prejudices (especially at the racial level) over broad society - but none of the postmodernist, self-appointed intellectuals and policy makers have any idea how to go about this, nor have they succeeded in doing anything to eliminate such anomalies. It is as though there is some underlying component that no one wants to acknowledge. Huh.
Like most people, you aren’t necessarily interested in heritability per se; I see you half-heartedly accept this component, but do not accept it for all traits, and you deny the data point black when you do this. You really just want to know about changeability. Let’s make this clear: You cannot shape traits to be what you want them to be, even if you limit the target range. Because what you’re doing, although you do not realise it, is conflating phenotypic plasticity with sources of environmental *variance* - you’ve learnt about this unique environmental factor, the factor that neither you, I, or anyone else knows anything about other than that it’s probably not accounted for by hereditary (but not necessarily genetics at large) and you’ve latched onto it to use as the only way to form an argument - in other cases you’ll outright deny the data which presents you with this component to argue with. You can’t decide what the hell you’re doing.
In terms of the "flexibility" of traits, for instance, average height among European populations differs and has increased by several cm since the Victorian era. Of course, height is plastic, changeable, sure it is. But that would hardly prove that a 5’4” male could have greatly increased his height by several inches, if he had only had the *willpower* and the right circumstances to do so. For healthy individuals height is highly heritable (with the usual insignificant impact from the shared environment and a nice unique environmental variable), and on this trait, as on all others, there are individual and racial differences, even among more closely related populations such as Europeans, as above. Rational people know how plastic, yet fixed a trait like height is. They know that such a highly heritable trait cannot be markedly manipulated from its genetically determined outcome. Yet, when it comes to other heritable traits, i.e., ingroup/outgroup favourtism, you seem to think that population-wide non-genetic manipulation can produce results compatible with a perceived achievable goal of a peaceful multicultural utopia.
Traits such as skin colour are relatively easy to comprehend, as only about half a dozen loci account for nearly all the between-population differences in complexion, whereas only a small fraction of the genetic variation of complex traits (such as height, intelligence, etc) in humans is yet detected. Most complex traits like this encompass thousands of genes of small effect, unlike skin colour which is compromised of just a few genes of large effect.
This is why you should not think of single genes coding for specific complex human traits — if two individuals, or particularly two populations, differ at one gene, they likely also differ at many other genes. A selection pressure that caused one difference will almost certainly have caused others. For instance, the effects of the MAO-A “warrior gene,” that is linked to increased criminality and is found at 10x higher rates among blacks, is by itself is only probabilistic in nature (again, its context-dependent, as noted above), but it then still needs to be taken in the context of the entire genome; i.e., it is impacted by other genes. Within-population variation is not comparable to between-population variation for this reason, but this is why we consistently see the differences we do - people of every race can theoretically be found at every level of distribution on any given trait, but there is not some magical non-genetic component that if removed will see people making voluntary and individual choices independent of their genes and inconsistent with their ancestry: The genetic history of a population affects its genome, and its genome effects the nature of its traits (and diseases).
Ergo, the evolutionary evolved mechanism of in group/out group favouritism will always exist, and the expression will vary among individuals. E.g., some individuals may only become determined racists after experiencing mass-immigration, or by becoming a victim of racial crime. Similarly, a black male in possession of the aforementioned 2-repeat allele of the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) “warrior gene” will not necessarily commit violent crime, but it will interfere with how he reacts in certain environmental contexts. Moreover, all behaviour is in the context of genes - either you acknowledge that all traits are, or you deny the data outright. You cannot manipulate population-wide variation in a non-genetic context to a point where a trait is removed of its original function and functions only the way you want it to among the populous. This is why your liberal cronies constantly fail to eliminate achievement gaps and group prejudices.
Behavioural genetics studies are not simple observational studies, which just look at associations and then emboldens others to draw conclusions in a classic confusion of correlation with causation. “Heritability”, as the term is implemented in quantitative genetics, refers to the portion of variation in a phenotype within a population that may be attributed to heritable differences. A heritability estimate below 1.0 simply proves some source of variation that is exogenous to the germ plasm, or perhaps a statistical source that is generated in the process of (imperfectly) measuring the trait in question. Who really knows what the unaccounted “unique environmental” variance is or does. You certainly don’t.
The aim here is not to overwhelm you with impenetrable rhetoric on a subject you know nothing about, as said I expected that, it’s become irrelevant at this point. Key is that you still disagree, but you cannot explain why you disagree, and you continue to come with up wrong ideas about everything, and then go on and on forever, arguing like a possessed lawyer. You can’t even decide whether you agree with the data or not:
You asserted from the start that "statistics are biased because people are biased" - again, with no evidence of any such bias in the data, whilst at the same time outright affirming my position on the nature of said bias. You’re the first to use racism (by whites) to explain seemingly any form of ethnic conflict in discussion, yet fail to accept the exact same phenomena in any other context. With this, you still do not understand that you dismantled your own position from the start. These kind of oblivious never-ending series of contradictory opinions typifies you people.
And yet again, here I am, arguing about the general inflexibility of social attitudes and individual behaviours, whilst explaining why you’re wrong for disagreeing. It’s ridiculous at this point, but I know to grant yourself the “last word” you’re still going to come back with more drivel, backed up by nothing other than personal opinion, that I have to endlessly refute.
I know why people like you disagree, because human genetics produces results that are racist, and therefore must be invalid. There is never any interrogation of the data except to refute it, by any dishonest approach you people can conjure up.
CNN’s Atika Shubert speaks to a father whose teenage son joined the Jihad movement in Syria.
DC-based Innovators Network Expands to Jacksonville on August 21
Socially Innovative rallies Downtown Jacksonville, Beaver Street Enterprise Center, NSBE, Creative Culture Media, CoWork Jax, JAX Online Marketing Meetup, TechFounders Jax, Startup JAX, iStart JAX, Tiphub Business Accelerator, Jacksonville Urban League Young Professionals and JAX Chamber IT Council for Inaugural Socially…