Science must broaden Mind

Onhell

Onhell

Infinite Dreamer
Ok I just got into a rather silly argument with a friend of mine, but it still left me rather uncomfortable She was telling me how she might work in the labs of the Genome Project. I asked her relating to what since it was decoded like 10 years ago or so and she said in relations. I told her genetics was a touchy subject and that ever since the genome was decoded all of a sudden there are genes for all types of behavior, which I thought was BS. She said she didn't want to argue (we usually do and it's more of a debate) and that science merely wants to explain behavior. I told her that genetics might explain SOME behavior but not all. She retorted that it didn't claim to and it never said that. I said other literature does. Science journals are the first to say that X gene MIGHT cause or be the reason for Y behavior/disease/death etc. But the lay media takes it to mean it DEFINITELY is the cause for whatever. Ok ok, here's what bothers me, she said, "I only read scientific journals." I said that's great but you should read other stuff since that is what MOST people read and you should know what MOST people are being told. "I don't care about what MOST people read, only what my daughter reads. (she's 22 and has a 2 year-old)" WTF? She's 2!!! I said, "She doesn't read yet, if she does it's not Scientific America, if it is she doesn't understand a 10th of it." That's where she logged off telling me to grow up.


Now aside from pulling the concerned parent card, I felt she was being EXTREMELY narrowminded. ONLY reading scientific journals is as narrowminded as ONLY reading comic books. Science readings and information are supposed to make you more aware and be able to apply your new insights on other broader subjects. Not only that, just for the sake of being informed. Who goes into a debate only knowing their side of the story? How many illed formed decisions do politicians make for only knowing not even half the story? I was shocked. Maybe I got her on an off day and I was being my usual button-pusher self, but still. I think knowledge and science are to broaden, not limit the mind, but that's just me.
 
Maybe you were abrupt?  However you are right about her being narrow-minded.  At her age she should listen to all objections and criticism to better her knowledge at full circle.  You have a strong personallity Onhell and your smart.  That's why she made her weak comment and logged off.  It was easier for her to turn away then fight a fight she was going to lose.  Stick to your guns and stick to what you know best.  Remember some people don't want to hear or know the TRUTH. 
 
Sounds like the typical narrow-minded, egocentric, elitist stuck-up arsehole to me. I'm sure she's a nice person otherwise, but this type of behaviour simply disgusts me. I wonder what she is studying this for: Does she want to help other people? Does she want to explain the world? Or does she simply think the "Dr" in front of her name will look nice and the cash flow will get the kid through college?
 
She's obviously annoyed that someone says that her job is a "touchy subject". Standing criticism isn't easy for everyone. She took it too personal (or YOU made it too personal?)

I would be interested if someone asked me questions about my job, but somehow she didn't like it.
Perhaps tomorrow she'll find out more about her job herself.
 
Forostar said:
I would be interested if someone asked me questions about my job, but somehow she didn't like it.
Click to expand...

Well, what is your job?  :D
 
Perun said:
Does she want to explain the world? Or does she simply think the "Dr" in front of her name will look nice and the cash flow will get the kid through college?
Click to expand...
I can't tell about the kids and the college but the "Dr" doesn't help you that much in chatting girls up... :D
 
You are all right, I was a bit abrupt, I did make it personal and she does want the "Dr." distinction to command respect. I changed the subject from relations to the decoded genome, I shouldn't have made that comment about her daughter (she is a VERY protective mother... a little too zealous at times, but no mother wants to heart that) and she wants the "Dr.", because frankly, she is a VERY beautiful girl who is taken for a ditz just because of her looks, but she is smart... at times a little misguided, but aren't we all? Anywho, I apologized to her for seeking an argument and the comment about her daughter, but my above points and opinions stand.
 
It's very important to understand the layperson's interpretation of modern science, or else you get things like, for lack of a better example, the miseducation occurring in the American south regarding issues like global warming and evolution.  For instance, your friend probably has a very good idea of the Theory of Evolution, the Scientific Method, and why 99.9% of scientists agree that the Theory of Evolution is likely correct and why Intelligent Design is not.  However, it is very easy for people to launch ridicule or smear campaigns, or simply misunderstand, and lead to not only different opinions but dangerous and retroactive ones.

Allow me to use an example from the movie Jesus Camp (I apologize, I please understand this isn't about religion, but miseducation of our youth through disdain or distortion of science).  In this movie, a young boy of around 10 was being homeschooled by his mother, who had taught him to dismiss global warming as possibility.  The boy echoed a sentiment that even if the world was getting warmer...so what?  It's only what, one and a half degrees (Fahrenheit)?

The academic community understands the seriousness of a 1 degree Kelvin increase in temperature globally.  I don't have a science degree, but I understand enough of the principle of energy retention and how much additional heat energy is retained not only by the atmosphere but by the oceans and other things in order for the world to increase that much in temperature.  Well, maybe I don't understand how much, but the basic principle means it's a metric fuckton, and that amount of energy is a serious amount.  But because this child doesn't seem to understand that areas of science (admittedly it's not something that you'd expect a 10 year old to fully understand, but one would hope the *parent* would have beyond a grade 5 education), he accepts the idea that such a change is not relevant to our biosphere.  Her ignorance of science and unwillingness to believe in global warming is passed onto her child, and without a basic idea of where that ignorance comes from, academics cannot hope to rival the child's ingrained view when he reaches college.  Assuming he ever does.
 
On the topic of genes controlling behavior: generally speaking, no. But strongly influencing some behaviors? Absolutely, yes.

I am thinking particularly of alcoholism. As most of you are aware, this is a subject where I have a great deal of knowledge. And it is an established fact that alcoholism strongly tends to run in families. Therefore, there must be some combination of genes which give a person a predisposition to alcoholism. Note that I am not claiming it is a single "alcoholism gene" or that it causes alcoholism. I'm only saying that genetics almost certainly play a substantial role in the equation.

Also, to be technical, there are many reflex behaviors which could be called genetic. Take the behavior of yanking your hand away from a hot stove to avoid burning. The "decision" to do so is not made in your brain; this reflex originates in the spinal cord. If your body waited for the signal of "I'm burning" to reach the brain and a reaction to come back, that extra split-second would only mean more damage. This reflex is the result of evolution, and it is programmed into our genes.

So I suspect we can agree there are roughly three groups of behaviors:
1. Reflexes which are programmed into our genes by evolution, and are therefore 100% genetic.
2. Very high-level behaviors, such as your taste in music, which are almost certainly 0% genetic.
3. That murky middle group which, like alcoholism, may be influenced but not controlled by genes.

The problem is, how do you differentiate between behaviors from the 2nd and 3rd groups? I have an answer I'd like to propose. Let me begin by quoting something I once posted in another thread...

SinisterMinisterX said:
All of the 7 deadly sins (anger, pride, lust, sloth, gluttony, greed and envy) are rooted in tendencies or even instincts that are necessary for human survival. For example, we have to eat to survive; it's only when one eats excessively that it becomes the "sin" of gluttony. Every one of these transgressions is the result of a good thing taken too far.
Click to expand...

Instinct-driven behaviors are not confined to those described by the 7 deadly sins - for example, fear is notably absent from that list. But it makes a good start for considering what behaviors have an instinctive basis upon which we have added more layers. The instinctive basis of such behaviors is likely to be genetic, and may be a fruitful area of study.

For example, take the "deadly sin" of anger. The instinctive basis for anger is a need to protect ourselves from attack. Sometimes avoiding the attack won't work, and an anger-driven counter-attack is the only way to survive. Remember I'm talking about base, reflexive behavior here. Think of a cornered animal, which might normally prefer to flee an attacker, but will fight when there is no other choice.

Now consider people who have so-called "anger management" problems. I've known a few of these people and I suspect some of you have too. Their predisposition towards angry behavior is, in some cases, rooted so deep in their personality that it's hard to explain it just by simple psychology. And with the few people I've known like that, they come from families who all act in a similar way. This would appear to be another case where genes may not entirely control the behavior, but they almost certainly influence it.

Onhell is right about how these subtleties are glossed over by much mainstream media. That's because people with problems want an excuse. They don't want to face their problems. They want to be able to say, "It's my genes! I can't control my drinking or my anger any more than I can control my height!" Obviously, as a recovered alcoholic, I call bullshit on any such attitude. But from my own experience, I know that it's hard to overcome a genetic predisposition. So any research which may make the path easier is something I favor - but any expectation that scientists will ever devise a "miracle cure" for these problems is a ridiculously false hope.


And now it's time to discuss the real heart of Onhell's post ... is it bad to get all your information from a single type of source? Not necessarily.

I get a large portion of my news from outlets which have a liberal attitude. That's because I'm a liberal, and that's the way I want my news. I don't care if Faux News is the most popular "news" channel in the US - they lie, and this has been proven time after time after time. Just because a media source is popular doesn't make it right. And I'd rather hear something true, even if that means I fail to hear the lies which millions of others believe.

This doesn't mean I ignore the other sources, though. Liberal news sources routinely monitor the conservatives and report what they say verbatim. So the solution is not completely ignoring what the unwashed masses are consuming - the correct path is to sample it in small amounts so as not to be contaminated by lies, and examine those safe amounts with an open mind.


<hijack>

This reminds me of an incident which people here may be interested in because it involves a rock star: Ted Nugent. While on Faux News the other day, he said that he believes Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton ought to "suck on a machine gun". This is possibly a threat of violence, or at least an indication of a willingness to use violence. Not really surprising from an inbred waste like Nugent. But how did Faux News handle it? When viewers complained, Faux News defended Nugent rather than even claim they weren't responsible for his opinions.

My point? Boycott. Don't buy any of his music. Don't give that fool any more money to finance his dreams of assassination.

</hijack>
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
I get a large portion of my news from outlets which have a liberal attitude. That's because I'm a liberal, and that's the way I want my news. I don't care if Faux News is the most popular "news" channel in the US - they lie, and this has been proven time after time after time. Just because a media source is popular doesn't make it right. And I'd rather hear something true, even if that means I fail to hear the lies which millions of others believe.

This doesn't mean I ignore the other sources, though. Liberal news sources routinely monitor the conservatives and report what they say verbatim. So the solution is not completely ignoring what the unwashed masses are consuming - the correct path is to sample it in small amounts so as not to be contaminated by lies, and examine those safe amounts with an open mind.
Click to expand...

Well, the thing is, you consciously choose good news sources. You choose the ones that present the news in a way you want it, and the ones that also treat news items critically and with regards to other opinions (judging by what you typed here and by the way I know you). I do the same. But most people simply have primitive news sources that do not even attempt to present serious news, but give people what they want to hear, in the vein of "ooh, taxes are too high!" or "ooh, they're the bad guys!". If that's your only news source, then that's not good.

My point? Boycott. Don't buy any of his music. Don't give that fool any more money to finance his dreams of assassination.
Click to expand...

Better yet: Ignore him. He obviously wants attention. He craves for it. He doesn't deserve it.
 
I try to read as much news as possible from many different spectrums.  The reason is because often times the truth can be found between two outlooks - or because it's simply good to know what those you disagree with are saying.  My personal favourite is Fox News's constant tactic of misidentifying Republicans accused of homosexual acts as Democrats.  They did that with Foley, the State Senator from Florida, and likely have done it with the newest pretend straight fellow from our favourite neo-cons.

Personally, when it comes to news, I prefer the BBC and CBC, and when reading the US news, if the BBC doesn't have the story I want, I check CBS or ABC.  Both are *smaller* news outlets and have less corporate control than CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News.  Generally I find this leads to a more balanced source of news, though I am likely to read the same story three, four different times on three or four different networks to try and find a good mix of opinion and bias.  Mind you: I will almost always side with the BBC.

An example of the news bias most easily discerned in American news: currently MSNBC and Fox News are running the exact same AP story on the Sen. Craig gay scandal.  But the titles are dramatically different:

MSNBC: Craig and GOP await voters' judgment.
Fox News: Idaho Republicans Ask Voters to Reserve Judgment on Craig

The differences are subtle but important.  In one, the story is suggested that people are awaiting to see how Idahoians (Idahoites?  Idahoagans?) react to the news that one of their Senators is a big cocksucker, literally.  In the other, the plea of the Republican Party to not judge one of their members immediately is put out loud and clear.  It's small, subtle, but terribly important.  Many people will only see what the article tells them: one to choose for themselves, the other to "reserve judgment".
 
On the genetics thing. I agree that they influence behavior, but the fact that they found alcoholism and violent behavior to be "passed down" in families has little to nothing to do with genes. I think it is more of a case that the children grow up witnessing such behavior in an enviornment that let's them think that type of behavior is acceptable. For example, I was spanked as a child and my mom to this day is verbally abusive. Thanks to my education I recognize that neither are acceptable. My father drinks heavily (my mom claims he is an alcoholic, he's not. Just a heavy drinker.) I only drink socially and two beers tops. My brother is the same way. My point is education has a higher bearing on your behavior than "genes". I have been able to curve plenty of my aggressive behavior through consciously wanting to change and being aware that that type of behavior is not only unacceptable, but unhealthy. I could have said, well I'm aggressive because both my parents are aggressive and I was spanked as a child and what not. But that is bull-shit. One is in control of his own destiny and behavior. Unless you get cancer, then you're fucked and you can thank grandma for that.


As for the News. I don't watch any news, I read Time, Newsweek, U.S News and World report along with the liberal Jesuit magazine America AND the conservative Franciscan magazine St. Agustine. For sports I get Sports Illustrated and used to get ESPN (I've been cutting subscriptions due to money issues lol) Magazine articles are able to go more in depth than any minute clip on the tv or a 100 word article in the newspaper can. Many times they cover the same story, but with a different angle, sometimes the same, still, it is another source. It is just to be well informed. If one source covered all the bases (that rarely happens) I'd only go to one source.
 
Onhell said:
... the fact that they found alcoholism and violent behavior to be "passed down" in families has little to nothing to do with genes. I think it is more of a case that the children grow up witnessing such behavior in an enviornment that let's them think that type of behavior is acceptable...
Click to expand...

While environment certainly plays a role, you are wrong.

I have known alcoholics who were adopted as babies, raised in non-alcoholic homes, and still turned out to be drunks ... only to find their birth parents after they quit drinking, and learned that the birth parents were drunks.

Or take my own case. My parents are not alcoholic, but their parents (my grandparents) were. Furthermore, I can assure you that excessive drinking is very much frowned upon by my parents, and I was not "raised" to do it. Whatever the combination of genes is, my case (which is not unique) suggests it may be recessive.

I'm not discounting environment, Onhell. But it has long been established as fact that alcoholism is partially genetic and runs in families, regardless of environment.
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
I'm not discounting environment, Onhell. But it has long been established as fact that alcoholism is partially genetic and runs in families, regardless of environment.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you here. My Mother is a recovering alcoholic and has said the exact same thing. Although what I have noticed in her, especially since she has been dry, is that she has an extremely addictive nature. Whether this is something to compensate for the drink or whether this is what caused her to become addicted to drink - I don't know - but could a person become alcoholic only because they have an addictive nature? Could such a person be addicted to something else if it wasn't drink - gambling, drugs or whatever? Could it simply be the addiction behaviour that is passed down rather than alcoholism and as drink is so readily available, it shows up more?
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
But it has long been established as fact that alcoholism is partially genetic and runs in families, regardless of environment.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a cheap and stubborn excuse, not admitting the shit people can be in.
I bet that circumstances are way more important than genetics. Both are important of course, but some aspects have more influence than others.
 
I think SMX is the last person to look for cheap excuses for the shit he's been through.
 
Perun said:
I think SMX is the last person to look for cheap excuses for the shit he's been through.
Click to expand...

I tried not to make it a personal thing, but I simply disagree that it might have nothing to do with environment (unless people have different definitions of this word). I am with Onhell here.

Speaking about this:

I have known alcoholics who were adopted as babies, raised in non-alcoholic homes, and still turned out to be drunks ...

I'd say I would have become an alcoholic myself if they had put me in such a clinic from day one!
 
I think that what we are actually talking about is the problem of addiction. I personally think that endangernment of addiction may well be something that has a foothold in genes. Some people seem to be incredibly resistant to addictions, while others get addicted to something immediately. Alcohol is just one of those possible addictions, but perhaps the most common one (next to smoking).
 
SMX (and others who might have felt offended), I apologize for my perhaps not the nicest comment ever.

I guess Perun summed it up well. The speed of starting an addiction might have to do with genes. But the more (negative) circumstances, the worse for the "victim".
 
@Forostar: I know it may sound like an easy answer, but I have heard this from my Mother and now SMX - they both say the same thing. There has to be something in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top