PDA

View Full Version : Genetic Determinism Refuted


James Brody
November 7th, 2006, 03:40 PM
Breaking Story: Woman exerts free will and relocates head up ass.

CNEMA interviewer found her to be very comfortable in her new conformation.

"I'm warm, moist, and no longer have to chew my food. My Hsp disagreed with my decision at first, but I overruled them."

She cited James Brody who said that she should be most content when surrounded by her own crap. On the other hand (if she can find it!) she wanted her example to destroy him and his genetic determinist (GD) friends.

Her feat is particularly remarkable: Hox genes have specified the linear order of body segments for perhaps as long as 500 million years. They sometimes duplicate a segment but almost never reverse their order.

"I reversed one genetic decision and now I intend to reverse others.

"I will marry a man 20 points dumber than I am but never know the difference: IQ, after all, means nothing but suppresses the numerically deprived. At last I am free of my guilt for all the nasty remarks that I used to make about my former friends's genetic characteristics such as a weird somatotype, personality, or hair texture.

"Genes make us different if we let them and everyone knows that's bad. That Leda, such a sweet girl!, swears that we're all alike. The basic problem never was genes but weak characters that don't control them.

"My daughter also will choose her next mate in an equitable manner and not according to eugenic traditions: a lottery will pick him regardless of what her friends think or his health and earnings prospects. To assure equity, he will have no say in his eligibility.

"My daughter is proud to shatter tradition: despite being 50% of her father's biological product, I brought her up to be just like me."

"The most important point is that humans are the only species to overrule their genes.

"Excuse me now. I have to go..."

1) New York City today expressed interest in recording sex on official documents not according to anatomy but to whatever the applicant asserts.
2) Name omitted for this interview since it was impossible to confirm identity because of an inconvenient cloud of brown steam. Interview material somewhat distorted by gurgles, echoes, and a bend in her tube. Interpret with care.)

Fred H.
November 8th, 2006, 02:54 PM
Woman exerts free will and relocates head up ass.
Survival of the shittest? One of the downsides of free will?

Speaking of free will and remarkable feats, I understand that the next Speaker of the House will be the first one having a vagina . . . and although Nancy seems to be rather “liberal,” and on occasion seems to have her head elsewhere, I suspect that she’d at least acknowledge that she’s a she, especially considering all the offspring that's been issued from her womb . . . hell, maybe a high-strung bitch with lots of offspring to protect is just what the war on terror needs.

Margaret McGhee
November 10th, 2006, 12:56 PM
It seems like some here weren't too happy with the outcome of the mid-term elections. ;)

James Brody
November 12th, 2006, 03:23 PM
I was annoyed that you persevere in your adherence to one perspective that does not recognize information from a different perspective.

I had obsessed for two weeks before posting. The election returns nudged me to proceed with posting. Your comment shows that you, again, find conclusions on the basis of coincidence.

Just as I have you in a flybox, you have me likewise. Genes act again!

JimB

PS: Thanks for helping my numbers!

Margaret McGhee
November 12th, 2006, 05:36 PM
As usual I find this last post very difficult to fathom. At least it is absent the more overt insults and I appreciate that.

JB: I was annoyed that you persevere in your adherence to one perspective that does not recognize information from a different perspective.
My honest response to that is astonishment. My impression is that I have explained my view, my hypothesis, in great detail and from several perspectives - hoping that someone here could provide some feedback. Tom has mentioned briefly that he thinks I'm probably right. Almost all actual critical comments have issued from Fred. Certainly you are not saying that those deserve my consideration. Maybe I missed something in his rants but was there some logical point he was making? I'm not saying that to be snarky. Please, if you think someone here made a coherent rebuttal to my ideas - either send me the link or better yet, restate them yourself. I look forward to engaging any serious comments.

JB: I had obsessed for two weeks before posting. The election returns nudged me to proceed with posting. Your comment shows that you, again, find conclusions on the basis of coincidence.
My comment was: It seems like some here weren't too happy with the outcome of the mid-term elections.
I wouldn't exactly call that a conclusion. By using the phrase "it seems" I was indicating conjecture on my part. I was pretty certain it applied correctly to Fred's post - but I wasn't so sure about yours. I thought maybe you were just having a bad night. Thanks for clearing that up.

LB: Just as I have you in a flybox, you have me likewise. Genes act again!
I have no idea what this flybox is that I have you in - and you me. My only interst is in discussing ideas - especially ideas concerning human nature - and especially the human nature of behavior choice. (Do you flyfish? I do.)

I have never given much thought as to whether the emotional behavior choice mechanism I have described in your forum supports your view of "genetic determinism" - or not. The discussion has occasionally gone off in that direction but I considered those sidetracks. I guess you thought they were somehow refuting my premise. I missed that if they did.

I am certainly not offering my hypothesis as a foil to the testosterone-fueled side of evolutionary psychology that you like so much. I have no doubt that genes are ultimately responsible for all human behavior. But I don't know how they could possibly be seen as the proximate cause of behavior choice. Neither you nor any EP proponents I have read have proposed any mechanism in the mind that would support such a premise.

I have proposed a mechanism whereby genetic influences are factored in to behavior choice decisions by way of the emotional forces they induce through dispositions and instincts - and less directly by way of the emotional forces associated with the beliefs we are led to adopt, often by circumstances we encounter in life acting on those same dispositions and instincts.

I'm not sure whether that supports your (or anyone's) concept of genetic determinism or not. Until now, I haven't considered that question relevant since the direct effect of genes seems to be several levels-of-abstraction away from the emotional forces I am describing.

From your post, you seem to think that your notion of genetic determinism is in some kind of opposition to my hypothesis. I welcome your engagement on this but I don't see the contradiction. Remember though that I am describing an actual behavior choice mechanism. You seem to be saying that genes influence behavior - and I've already agreed to that. But if you think we have contradictory views on this, please elaborate. I look forward to your response and learning something new.

That's really all I want to do. All the yelling and insults are a tiresome distraction.

I have noticed that threads that I participate in do seem to have higher view counts and reply counts. I draw no particular conclusions from that. It could be that the threads I find interesting are the threads that others find interesting. I don't have any idea how this forum is financed, who benefits from hits or how they benefit. If you benefit that's great - glad to help.

Looking forward to your reply,

Margaret

Fred H.
November 16th, 2006, 11:33 AM
MM: I have noticed that threads that I participate in do seem to have higher view counts and reply counts.
Of course that is MM’s belief, b/c, as she has acknowledged, she only believes what “makes her feel good,” and, in accordance with her “axiom,” she then “uses her brain to justify” that belief.

A quick look, however, suggests that the reality is something different—the threads having the most activity tend to be those having my own generally insightful and entertaining, and occasionally controversial, input, probably b/c of my ability to quickly cut through the BS and to the essence of the various issues being discussed.

OTOH, I suppose one might argue that MM has been something of an unwitting foil, which may have helped generate more activity . . . so maybe we should all be grateful that MM, while not having “any idea how this forum is financed, who benefits from hits or how they benefit,” is nevertheless, “glad to help.” How liberal of MM.