Subjective Defiance, no o si?

[She (She (now Ichthus77))]

I was thinking about the influences of genes on behavior. Take race and sex, for example. To put it extremely simply, the extreme nurture argument would say we can change our culture and gender, while the extreme nature argument (while admitting some things are labeled sex- or race-specific which are not) would say there is a genetic basis for culture and gender which we will always return to, even if we attempt to transcend it, because we are rooted to it like we are rooted to the rest of the universe. We may give the appearance of flying (of our culture/gender not being influenced by our genes, but instead being chosen), but what goes up must come down, type of thing.

Then I was thinking – which will have more influence on behavior – sex or race? People of different races come together, their child is mixed-race, not one or the other – like when Lady and the Tramp have children, and the girls all look like Lady, and the boys all look like Tramp. People of two different sexes come together, they either have a boy or a girl, or, if something goes wrong, somewhere in between – can that happen in the case of race – something goes wrong, and the genetic information that is different between each race is not combined correctly in the child? With race, you get both – but is it an equal distribution, always? – what would be an indication that something went wrong? With sex, you get either/or, and if something goes wrong, you get varying degrees of both (depending on what went wrong).

It seems that sex would have more of an influence on behavior than would race, and therefore would influence behavior similarly across all races. (I am curious to hear objections or further insights.)

But we see that there is a variety of ways gender takes shape (or doesn’t) between cultures organized around race. This leads me to believe that either a) gender is not wholly determined by sex, or b) much (or all?) of what we consider sex-specific behavior, really isn’t.

I believe this is closely connected to the relativism/objectivism argument in Ethics. Just because there is diversity, does not, all by itself, rule out a common unity – but to that I would say, that the common unity, if it defines us, should not be something seen changeable over time, but should be something impossible to defy, like gravity, so that no one could be considered immoral/inhuman, relative to it, since it would never occur to them to defy it (as it defines them). To defy is to define.

If you throw ‘awareness’ into the equation, it changes everything. We are compelled (driven), to over-power that which drives us once we become aware of the signs of its ‘driving’. Can we over-power the drive to over-power the drive… is there a case to be made for or against doing such a thing?

Any thoughts would be appreciated…

Thankyou for reading my jumbled thoughts…

[detrop]

I’m not sure I understand, She. But don’t feel like you have to explain it again. Let’s just let others comment on it and see where it goes. Maybe through your discussions with them I’ll find it.

[_removed_by_manageme ([removed by management])]

[contented edited by ILP]

[detrop]

[ahem]…yeah, what Ab said.

[She (She (now Ichthus77))]

Thankyou

The units of heredity are chromosomes, not races.

that makes me sound like an idiot… I like this better:

Race, however, is not a genotype at all, but a phenotype, and a nebulous one at that. “Race” is assigned on the basis of several traits, most of which appear on a continuum, that tend to occur together - but this tendency is far from consistent.

I need to read more on genotype/phenotype… I remember it being brought up in ILP, but it’s prob’ly burried…

By this…

This doesn’t mean that culture is not genetically determined, however. All the variety in the human genome is negligible compared to the amount of material that’s exactly the same in every non-defective individual. It’s this that is the prime determinant of human culture, and it’s no wonder that human cultures are (given a similar material environment) so nearly identical.

and this…

Genetic determinants of behavior are highly segregated as between the sexes, and much less so between races.

… do you mean “human culture” to include highly segregated genetic determinants of behavior between males and females, then? Would the statement in bold apply to races, but not sexes?

All of our ideology has a very modest impact on society, when we consider the vast range of possibilities that have been imagined, proposed, or even observed (in other animals).

We are creatures of habit, and attitude change is not that easy, however, our history (the social evolution of culture and gender) proves it is possible to change the way we think and organize. But maybe I misunderstand what you mean by “our ideology”. If I don’t, I would agree the impact of any ‘new’ ideology (which has any practical/relevant application) will at first be “modest”, as people prefer the status quo.

Still, there are ways to “overcome” our genetic cultural determinants. We can change our material circumstances, or we can change the genome itself. I see every reason to strive for such change, in spite of the obvious danger.

I agree. Out of curiosity (if the answer is not too broad to… answer… hehe), what sort of changes would you have in mind?

[_removed_by_manageme ([removed by management])]

[contented edited by ILP]

[She (She (now Ichthus77))]

Thanks for the quick rundown on phenotype/genotype… I was sort of familiar w/ it, but the thread I referred to went beyond just the basics and something is telling me it is relevant here…

sex is determined by a single chromosome pair … traits associated with race are carried on several different chromosomes and hence are readily commingled … Race, …is not a genotype at all, but a phenotype

If there are ‘highly segregated genetic determinants of behavior’ between normal males and normal females of all races (if we disregard observations to the contrary, collected by anthropologists) – how does this effect abnormal males/females – where is the line drawn? Does the ability to grow breasts all by itself, or in combination with other stronger behavior-determining factors, turn the abnormal male into a “feminine” individual – or would that not take socialization?

Do you know what factors effect intelligence… why it is assumed women are more intuitive, while men are assumed to better handle hard logic?

Yes. If a culture could be composed entirely of males or entirely of females [She: that’s not what I meant], it would, I think, be very different, even before the lack of children became apparent, and even if the lack of mates were not an issue.

Granted that reproduction (without technology) and heterosexuality would be impossible without two sexes, I wasn’t suggesting one of the “sexes” cease to exist… Do you really think the difference in behavior between males and females, apart from reproductive/sexual roles, is “very different” due to “highly segregated genetic determinants of behavior between males and females”? Do you not think the “gender gap” could be closed by changing our ‘material circumstances’ alone (due to having more in common, a “human culture”) – or would it also take gene manipulation (whether or not you would be inclined) – or is behavior too complicated (involving nurture, for starters) to be able to change it through gene manipulation, or to attribute it to genetic causes alone?

Also, objectivists who think there is an objective morality based on our genetically determined human culture… would maybe argue that it would be immoral to change the way it is (despite evolution being part of the way it is)… but none of them have spoken up… I feel you may be humoring me… but I do appreciate your input.

[_removed_by_manageme ([removed by management])]

[contented edited by ILP]

[Zen_Swashbuckler]

@abgrund

@Sheâ„¢

…why it is assumed women are more intuitive, while men are assumed to better handle hard logic?

It’s not “assumed”, it’s observed.

This sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. We still have a culture in which masculinity is somewhat correlated with problem-solving and action, and femininity is somewhat correlated with interpersonal skills and self-reflection. These are hardly necessary correlations - if they exist in biology and not exclusively in the way our culture raises its children, this needs to be proved pretty substantially. I see no reason why this division needs to be kept, but if we say there actually is some difference in brain function or the “natural way” each gender thinks, we will find such a difference whether it exists or not.

@abgrund

@Sheâ„¢

Do you really think the difference in behavior between males and females, apart from reproductive/sexual roles, is “very different” due to “highly segregated genetic determinants of behavior between males and females”?

Didn’t I say so?
“Very different”, of course, is only in relation to the range of normal human behaviors - compared to alligators, men and women seem much the same.

I quite disagree. The existence of aggressive women in leadership roles and passive men in following roles does not fit with the idea that non-sexual behavior is genetically determined. This would be tantamount to saying that personality is genetically determined.

@abgrund

@Sheâ„¢

Do you not think the “gender gap” could be closed by changing our ‘material circumstances’ alone…

It already has, to some degree, but it is clear that even given identical circumstances, men and women have significantly different average personality traits. It’s doubtful whether any further reduction of differences is possible - even attempts to reduce them by force have been futile.

Ah. I guess that’s what you did say. I think that’s hardly possible. What I think is going on is that we have only been attempting to “close the gender gap” for like a century (out of the whole history of Western culture). Since personality traits are determined (I think it’s clear) during childhood, it takes an entire generation (~20 years) to really internalize each new idea. I’d give it another half century or so before we give up and say personality is determined by sex chromosomes - there’s still a lot of parents who feel girls “are” one way and boys “are” another way, and their children internalize those ideas. If you raise a girl on G.I. Joes and water guns and boy-legos, and a boy on dolls and toy kitchen sets and makeup, I almost guarantee you will wind up with a woman who “acts like a guy” and vice versa.

(Of course, they’ll each be unhappy for their whole childhood because everyone else in their own gender is being raised in the complete opposite way)

(Clearly the use of force has been futile - ultimately it always is in these matters…)

[_removed_by_manageme ([removed by management])]

[contented edited by ILP]