Gene supremacy (Was: Re: Meme supremacy)

den Otter (
Sun, 31 Aug 1997 23:37:47 +0200

Kennita Watson wrote:
> >From today's CNN headline news:
> An analysis of more than 200 studies has concluded that a person's genes
> account for only about half the factors that determine intelligence
> or I.Q. The analysis suggests that conditions during prenatal
> such as inadequate care, may play a more significant role than previously
> thought. The findings, published in Thursday's issue of the journal
> undercut the controversial 1994 book "The Bell Curve," which gave more
> to genetics.

Sure, prenatal conditions and upbringing will have their effect on things
like intelligence (again: in the *broadest* sense of the word), but the
original genetic programming is almost certainly the most important
factor (by far). Various studies of uniovular twins have shown the dramatic
similarities in both looks and personality. These people have
almost exactly mirror lives, although they were brought up great distances
apart, in different environments and with no contact with one another.
Imo, this virtually shatters the idea of "free choice" and the
of man. Is this covered in that book, "The Bell Curve", (I've never read it
though I probably will now). I have no idea about the quality (quantity
isn't everything) of those "200 studies" but I'd love to hear how they
explain the twin parodox. Btw, I'm also sceptical of CNN's integrity and
the timing of this "politically correct" news. The same people will
probably tell you that x studies have proven that being gay is a "choice"
instead of a genetic "disorder"...

> And for my own part:
> Why waste time even discussing, much less attempting to justify, why some
> individuals treat some other individuals badly?
Because that's what we do here: wasting our time with discussion
while the world goes to hell. But hey, it's fun and and least now I
know what the contents of a lavalamp are :)