Utopia Talk / Politics / Genes?

Sam Adams Member	Fri Feb 15 12:35:37 http://www.bbc.com/news/education-47240580 The study found black Caribbean pupils were twice as likely to be identified as having social, emotional and mental health needs as white British pupils. The Oxford University team could not explain the "substantial over-representation" of this group. There was a strong correlation between SEMH and social-economic background, Prof Strand said, but this could explain only half of the increased likelihood of a black Caribbean child being identified as having SEMH.
Pillz Member	Fri Feb 15 12:48:54 Lol
Sam Adams Member	Fri Feb 15 13:10:44 Although they did mention shitty parenting and gang culture, which is far more honest than eurodweebs usually are.
jergul large member	Fri Feb 15 17:03:48 There are some interesting studies on gene activation. Children inherit stressed out genes from their parents. It gained traction as a holocaust thing. Though mental health issues are always under diagnosed. It could simply be a case of it being less under diagnoses in a group identified as having social, emotional and mental health needs above the norm.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Feb 15 18:32:29 Or it could be genes
jergul large member	Fri Feb 15 18:52:39 Sammy Indeed. Particularly if you believe trauma activates gene expression and that gene expression is inheritable. Though like always, the study's findings are likely a combination of very many things.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Feb 15 19:17:03 Agreed.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Feb 16 06:02:21 If you believe, yes. There are just very few reasons to believe. Escpecially when the study "referenced" here is a cross-sectional one with a sample size of 32. The yet unexplained opposite DNA methylation in the children compared to their parents observed in that study is another reason to be sceptical and wait for better data. We (you and I) don't understand epigenetics yet. It isn't our fault because frankly no one really does. There is some evidence to believe that expecting mothers who experienced trauma, this can effect the behavior of the child. It has been observed in mice and studied in Rwanda, small sample size, but of better quality. This is intuitivly easier to digest, if the trauma is induced in your mother as your developing in the womb, there are many pathways (non-genetic as well) that could possibly effect the developing child. All in all, don't put any eggs in this basket that you care about. Few studies and even fewer that are robust and high quality.
jergul large member	Sat Feb 16 08:52:43 Nimi The theory is attractive because it does have some explanatory power. What mechanism drives adaptation in a biological sense. It fits better that activated gene expression is inherited in addition to adaptation occurring through random mutations.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Feb 16 12:20:01 Epigenetic changes are already known to be heritable. It is not know to what degree they have an effect. In the specific case of "inheriting trauma", I meant that this area is completely unknown and lacking in evidence.
jergul large member	Sat Feb 16 20:27:45 "http://en....al_epigenetic_inheritance" The evidence is not overwhelming (scroll down to "in humans). I would still consider it an attractive theory as opposed to something categorically demonstrated. I did not say "inherit trauma" I said trauma could induce changes in genetic expression and that those changes could be inheritable.
Pillz Member	Sat Feb 16 21:03:09 What did the word epigenetic do to you, jergul? Just use it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 17 03:19:39 Jergul Epigenetic by definition means they are heritable, otherwise they are just changes, genetic or otherwise, in an organism (human or not), which obviously do occur. If you were not insinuating that children can through epigenetic inherit stressed out genes, responding to sams article about higher levels of social and mental health issues in some group, ok then.
jergul large member	Sun Feb 17 03:50:56 Nimi "The consensus definition now requires a trait to be heritable for it to be considered epigenetic" Fair enough. I was merely being clear on what I was looking at (the older, broader definition obviously stuck to my mind). You may have to retype that last paragraph. I was suggesting that if you look at genetics to explain variations in mental health, then you have to accept that epigenic factors may contribute to the variations. "Stressed out genes" is not a meaningful term. Stress may have caused epigenic change and that change be inherited. It is an important distinction as studies do suggest the changes are of short duration (a couple of generations) if the stress factors are removed. It does fit with what we know. Marginalized groups placed in a new environment will assimilate over the course of several generations if ghettofication is avoided. Ultimately, it may mean that genetic understanding can be used to form policy again. This time perhaps with more constructive outcomes than in the 1940s.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 17 04:19:56 Ok well, yes generally things that contribute to a phenotyope have to be considered. But I was under the impression you were being more specific than such a generic an uncontrovertial claim like that. You mentioned the holocuast sample. That was my only comment. Stressed out genes was the term you used. The thing is the reason why epigenetic is hard to provide evidence for (in humans) is that it drowns out and is confounded with all the other genetic, biological and cultural factors. I don’t know that the claim is accurate. Many things can confound the results starting with how selective immigration policy is. I have not read anything large scale on this issue. I think it should be the goal of these fields to understand us better so that we can become better. Like we try so understand cancer and cure it, we try to understand mental health issues, we should try to understand what makes us smarter. Policy would certainly have a role, though I am not sure how and perhaps best not to deploy any policy on premature data. My problem with policy is that is as a rule always modeled around a social constructivist framework that we know doesn’t come close to what actual data shows. That the largest factor responsible for systematic differences between people are there genes. The blank slate gives a distorted view of how the world works and does not bring us any closer to understanding and solving the issues.
jergul large member	Sun Feb 17 05:35:55 Nimi Lets take policies as a given (there will be policies based on imperfect information no matter what). Lets also take assimilation as a policy goal (we will ignore indigenous rights for ease of argument). If studies show that the 3 generation lag between immigration and assimilation can in part be explained by genetics, then we know that no amount of social constructs is going to change that. The best we can hope for is not extending the time frame indefinitely. So on the one side, if you take in 10 000 refugees in a given year, then know that this will lead to 50 000 poorly adapted people in total over a few generations. Is then 10 000 perhaps too many? It would stabilize at around 1 million poorly adapted people in various stages of transition into "samhaldet" (the Swedish word for society mixes in a dash of community, solidarity, and unity). On the other hand, once you do have disenfranchised subsets of a population for whatever reason, then you also know that providing the means for normalcy is the quickest way to overcome relatively short term changes in the groups genetic expression. The blank slate tenant would remain intact under such policy perspectives, but would consider the genetic basis for inequality to be as malleable as any social or economic factor, abet on a longer time frame. For example.
jergul large member	Sun Feb 17 05:36:44 Applied genetics would have to work like that. It is an inter generation perspective by definition.
jergul large member	Sun Feb 17 05:40:30 Applied social genetics*
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 17 08:15:58 There is no circumstance in which a blank slate framework will provide any meaningful insights into human behavior, because it just isn’t true. That goes for people born in a country and obviously those that migrate at a later age. Policy in the best of worlds relies on scientific data, but even in its’ absence constructivist thinking is more intuitive for people in describing human beings, especially for politicians whose entire work relies on policies being effective. It becomes more complicated if the problems are, to a substantial degree, hardware related.
jergul large member	Sun Feb 17 09:44:57 Nimi Universal suffrage and the rule of law are founded on a blank slate tenant, so it would be hard to imagine removing the concept. At least in so far as not replicating the unfortunate policies of the 1940s is a goal. The goal of policy is in other words not to provide meaningful insight into human behaviour, but rather to use insights to design better policies. I think both of us would be hard pressed to find any examples of behaviour that is not hardware related. I think our disagreement here rests on my thoughts that applied social genetics is really only relevant on a timeline spanning several generations. It indicates that migration planning has to look scores of years into the future. Current planning on integration and assimilation within 5 years seems hopelessly short-sighted. If we accept for the sake of argument that heritable gene expression does impact on behaviour and that it will revert on its own accord after a couple generations.
TJ Member	Sun Feb 17 10:50:51 Nim-->There is no circumstance in which a blank slate framework will provide any meaningful insights into human behavior, because it just isn’t true. Individual behavior isn't predictable with any degree of precision. jergul--->The goal of policy is in other words not to provide meaningful insight into human behaviour, but rather to use insights to design better policies. Group behavior is subject to statistical analysis. Different arguments. Two different arguments. Butterflies...
jergul large member	Sun Feb 17 11:04:16 TJ Statistical analysis would be among the many insights policy could be based on. I did not suspect nimi thought this applied at an individual level. Individual variations are to great for that to be meaningful as you suggested. I suppose we could imagine certain markers and individual might have, but that would not provide meaning. And even if it did provide meaning, it would fly in the face of our democratic traditions and would need to be discounted (alternatively discount democratic traditions).
TJ Member	Sun Feb 17 12:25:14 jergul: I may have misunderstood Nim. It is how I read blank slate so I'll leave it to him for clarification. Until then, I'm going to focus on one of the many insights you suggested, but left unexplained. One being the affect of change on habits/tradition. Group psychological history and its individual relationship. "And even if it did provide meaning," It does provide meaning. It is what infiltrates tradition and changes traditional habit. It should never be discounted in my opinion. Bite by bite totally consumes tradition. Time for a cup. Butterflies...
jergul large member	Sun Feb 17 13:11:46 I was referring specifically to an imagined dna marker that correlates with some trait or behavior. Not meaningful because correlation is not causation, nor is a general correlation explanatory in any individual case. But even if it had been meaningful, we could still not geno profile individuals with that marker and engage them on the basis of them having suspicious genes. Or rather, we could. But only after assigning democracy and to rule of law to the dustbins of history.
jergul large member	Sun Feb 17 13:15:39 Just an explanation of what I meant.
TJ Member	Sun Feb 17 14:13:59 jergul: Gotcha. In order to hopefully simplify my point too. Predictive models grow less accurate with time, particularly human social models. We can't predict the limit of future technology either in the long term. Without the dustbins there would be no history. Sentience- the faculty through which the external world apprehends. Maybe I have too much time on my hands.
jergul large member	Sun Feb 17 21:49:45 TJ Time - the ultimate commodity! Having too much is like complaining about having too much money :-). I was trying to ignore prediction by acknowledging we may depart from a model that has served us well for less than 100d years (counting from universal suffrage). Future technology will be magic to all intents and purposes. I pin my hopes on natural birthrate decline. Project it not too far (10-12 generations) and we are back at an indefinitely sustainable population virtually independent of lifestyle choices. There is equilibrium. We just have to wait for it :-).
jergul large member	Sun Feb 17 21:51:32 Last point relevant because if we want to apply social genetics, then we need to think in terms of generations.
TJ Member	Mon Feb 18 00:06:54 We could suffocate in this rabbit hole. I don't have that much time. :) Government, individuals, and groups sense of morality lessens as they gain power. Social behavior...
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Mon Feb 18 08:55:44 Is it true that diarrhea is genetic because it runs in your jeans?
jergul large member	Mon Feb 18 10:45:09 I laughed.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 20 05:42:29 ”Universal suffrage and the rule of law are founded on a blank slate tenant” Values and legal rights are not the same thing as (social) scientific theory. You can have values that assume all human being legally should have the same rights and obligations. This isn’t the same thing as assuming human behavior is socially constructed as per a blank slate. Of course such policy and legal framwork would have to be nuanced by science. There is still nothing that indicates this whole democracy project is universally applicable or even sustainable in the places it exists. So the experiment continues :) I hope it pans out, but things look shaky. I hope you understand what I mean. Yes we gave everyone the right to vote 100 years ago, two world wars later, this EU project looks shaky and the US seems to be on the verge of a civil war. So if those experiments fail, then maybe in 100 years people will look back at these tabula rasa concepted ideas of giving everyone voting rights as retarded? :) So, se could have values and social structures that sound nice, but are ultimately evolutionarily mal-adaptive.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 20 05:54:11 The gist of what I am saying is that for policy to be effective it can not ignore human nature, which a blank slate approach does. If for example violent crime is driven more by human nature and not socioeconomic status, then you will not solve that problem by building more skate parks or throwing money into poor areas. Etc. Then you have to go back and study the problem at a deeper levels and figure something else out instead of deploying policy that sounds rights to the intuitivlely digestable blank state approach. Biology+sociology = I think we maybe on to something.
jergul large member	Wed Feb 20 06:34:12 My point was that the logic of having universal suffrage and the rule of law falls apart without the assumption of a blank slate. My other point is that if violent crime is driven by gene expression, then you solve the problem by building more skate parks and throwing money into poor areas for 3 or so generations. If more genetically hard-wired (anchored in dna composition, not expression) then the obvious solution is of course to add more variation into that specific gene pool and again wait for 2 or so generations. Or do what we are doing in other words. The time for policy to gauge if a society can absorb migrants over the course of several generations is of course before they arrive. A country commits to the long haul once they arrive. I cannot underline enough how important it is to grasp the scale is relevant to. You have to wait generations to see policy outcomes. The only factor I am aware of that is genuinely mal-adaptive in an evolutionary sense is being born a male. The chances of passing along paternal genes over a number of generations is tiny. Women are much, much better at it.
jergul large member	Wed Feb 20 06:35:09 The last is for context. I don't think it is constructive to make calls on what and what is not good evolutionary adaption.
TJ Member	Wed Feb 20 12:06:20 AI in time will exterminate humans or give them a futuristic brain reconstruction unifying sentience. In the God story the Son was an earthly failure. Is there anything we won't do for our sons even if it is wrong? Curve ball...
jergul large member	Wed Feb 20 12:16:52 TJ Why would an earth generated AI do either (extra terrestrial AIs I get. The kinetic impactors are enroute:)? The future seems brighter when we abandon a viral mindset. I place great stock in birth rates below replacement. It solves all things in relatively short order (short in an evolutionary scale).
TJ Member	Wed Feb 20 14:17:10 "The future seems brighter when we abandon a viral mindset." Collective agreement is a human construct that creates chaos in an attempt to combine divided and subdivided groups and systems. Just maybe, the divided systems are the equilibrium that forces innovation and avoids forced capitulation. Opposition seems to be the evolutionary balance within humanity. It even controls populations, but don't be shortsighted, all problems will never be solved as long as humanity has the ability to think about its thinking. It is the super power. Brighter is subjective with a narrow beam.
jergul large member	Wed Feb 20 14:33:19 TJ Divided systems tend to signify stagnation and lack of development. Innovation is the child of communication most of all. This from a historical perspective. The goal is never to solve all problems, but rather to free up time to examine new and better problems. This would be my idea of better, brighter things to come. The three horsemen are becoming very old school and quite trite. Amazing the hopes that can be pinned on non-viral trends like the outlook for a much lower population through peaceful means.
TJ Member	Wed Feb 20 16:17:06 You said birthrates solve all things in short order on an evolutionary scale. I simply pointed out the application of the word *things* happens to be ambiguous. It isn't evolution that needs to fix itself. I've also pointed toward stagnancy within systems being a motivator of change/innovation, as well, touching on the extreme difficulties of implementing a perceived excellence. Spices are the seasoning and reasoning that propels continual adaptability or failure. The two seem suited to the pallet on an evolutionary scale. Peaceful means is no guarantee of a peaceful future. When did better problems become a good situation? I'll take it as you meant what you perceive to be less important problems. On a dive into darkness. :)
jergul large member	Thu Feb 21 02:20:08 TJ I think it fair to say that successful evolutionary adaption trends towards equilibrium in how a population impacts on its environment. I think a planetary population of around 200 million is enough in any meaningful sense of the word. This is within reach through peaceful means. Better problems are anything we might concern ourselves with that is not war, starvation, pestilence, nor any of their analogues.
TJ Member	Thu Feb 21 10:48:36 jergul: Obviously thinking was meant to be. Thinking isn't knowing. It is what has gotten us to where we are in the present. The good, the bad, and the ugly. The survival of the fittest isn't always how we view fit. What do you think the odds are for ugly being the fit that survives? I think, therefore, I am. Damn, that rabbit hole. I am, will always think. It is reasonable to believe that gene environment expresses its own philosophic function to survive.
jergul large member	Thu Feb 21 12:01:41 TJ On a tangent. You are familiar with humans as a biosphere. Most of the genetic matter we lug about is not really ours. Feeling hungry? Candida albicans wants a chocolate bar :-).
TJ Member	Thu Feb 21 12:19:23 Wise as a serpent gentle as a dove. More often than not there is deception in perception. "Feeling hungry? Candida albicans wants a chocolate bar :-)." Environment... Yes, I'm chuckling.
jergul large member	Fri Feb 22 09:33:58 Nimi and TJ If you want to look at max smerts though genetic manipulation, then the place to start is by manipulating bacterial and sporral composition. A proper diet over the long term might see quite a significant average lifetime IQ gain - both at individual and group levels. You are what you eat in a very literal sense.
TJ Member	Fri Feb 22 11:16:06 Don't you consider what food is consumed internally as environment? Lets not neglect knowledge intake. The levels and types of food intake can influence mental and physical health. Max smarts is as ambiguous as IQ. Manipulating... Revisit the first sentence in my previous post. Perceived, known, or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving). You are uncertain or the word *might* wouldn't have been in your claim, so, I read as perceived. I'm certain that what we eat is important to the well being of mind and body. We need more than food intake to substantially increase the level of intelligence individually or collectively. I do agree though, food consumption is an elementary beginning, yet I know people who have an atrocious (bad in quality) food consumption with superior intelligence. It seems we have come full circle. I have no idea what max smarts even means, but I do have extreme doubt that the prefect diet is a major part of intelligence. What happens if a bacteria from another planet invades your body from a meteor strike that is slightly different than human DNA? Would you consider it a evolutionary function? Possibly a mutation that could enhance your intelligence. How far can we stretch the imagination? It is good for intelligence.
jergul large member	Sat Feb 23 12:08:17 TJ Look wider. How would avoiding 10 years of dementia impact on an individual's life time IQ average? Max smerts meaning optimizing average cognitive capacity. We are all almost always off peak cognitive performance. Tweaks can have dramatic effect. Ultimately, it would matter what that extraterrestrial bacteria liked to eat. It would enhance our intelligence if it liked kale or something - and had the ability to convey to us a desire to eat more kale.
TJ Member	Sat Feb 23 14:22:56 I'd prefer efficiency without sucking everything out of life that makes it worthwhile and I'm fairly certain a hefty number agree. "We are all almost always off peak cognitive performance. Tweaks can have dramatic effect." I've always chuckled when someone says "give me 110%" and kale ain't gonna do the trick. You burn out quick enough preforming at a constant 100% of your ability. Don't blowup the engine. You missed my slight of imagination, but chomp chomp! I think I got the kale deal a long time ago. Replicate!!!!!!! Eat your spinach if you want to be like Popeye or eat your kale if you want to be like jergul. Eat both and you'll be a smart Popeyed jergul. This is almost too much fun. I smell the smoke from a short circuit. Is laughter good for cognitive performance? Its been fun, but I've seemed to have overly tweaked the processor. The carburetor needs to be less rich.
jergul large member	Sat Feb 23 15:35:20 Lol tj, I am not trying to pry a steak out of your cold, dead, fingers. But there is a difference between enjoyment and obsession. I think advertising has tweaked us towards meat obsession (A traditional northern norwegian diet had cod 6 days a week, and halibut on Sundays). I eat more spinach than I do kale. By far. The only thing that brings me within shouting distance of 50% vegetables for dinner is canned tomatoes. And I would need to shout far and loud. But it has to be common knowledge that the common diet is shit? A little less shit would do miracles.
jergul large member	Sat Feb 23 15:40:33 I was not suggesting we should aim to operate at 100% of peak. But 60% on average would be nice (it would technically also involve sleep discipline and working habits incompatible with the modern workplace's focus on clocked hours. With actual production in those hours ranked at a far second place if ranked at all.
TJ Member	Sat Feb 23 17:07:57 I didn't mention steak. lulz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m934ImU34bM
jergul large member	Sun Feb 24 01:49:23 Heh, the Charles Heston reference was just too tempting (feel free to use the meat of your choice up to and including wendy's hamburgers). Surely we all know that we did not reach our meat consumption habits organically? Even something as simple as the good old food pyramid was the result of intense lobbying. I get the attraction. The ability to provide food is hardwired as important. And what could be better than providing meat? The answer is of course - many, many things.
TJ Member	Sun Feb 24 15:02:12 Most find what I'm about to state difficult to digest (pun intended). I approve of your approval to eat what I choose. :) I haven't been in or eaten anything from a fast food joint in over 30 years. In that period of time I've eaten food in two restaurants and a third I only consumed coffee. Each of those times happened to be when Fred was in the area while trucking. In that same period of time, I haven't consumed anything but raw veggies and fruit at funeral wakes or receptions of any sort. I also prepare when traveling to maintain my preference of nutritional consumption. Close friends know my food habits and they respectfully accommodate me when I'm invited for a meal or snacks. It works in the reverse perfectly well. I've never considered myself average as a kid or adult. That has been a good thing. :) Eating is like shaving for me and if it wasn't necessary I wouldn't do either of them. You should consider me a nutritionist for those 30 years, but I realize and appreciate that it is a choice. Different strokes for different folks is what is most important. There are many things I don't approve of in this world and this is an area we differ considerably. I don't involve myself in the freedom of others in order to improve collective cognitive performance. Seems common not to appreciate others interfering with personal freedom to improve their vision of betterment. I view personal choices as the pursuit of liberty/freedom only possible with the least government involvement that wants to control from a fake morality position. That isn't to say I'm antiscience, which I'm clearly not, but I am opposed to the direction of the current social science forcing the implementation under the guise better. The education system has been misguided, in my opinion, for a considerable time. I'm suggesting to weed out the deception in perception and at the same time defending reasonable freedom for all of humanity. I make every effort in weeding out self righteousness from my personality. I'm not everyone and everyone isn't me. My rabbit hole has an entrance and an exit. I'm not in disagreement that good nutrition is an advantage mentally and physically. That seems to have been derived from your perception of what I've posted previously and not what I've said. Consider the cognitive performance. At the same time I fully understand this is an exercise of expression as well as persuasion from perception. All of it is good, but important differences. Changes are like spices, some we like and some make us sick. Such is life and I'm not in need of a safe place. A perfectly safe place doesn't exit and claiming victim hood replicates itself. The process is strong, but the result is weakness. It doesn't enhance cognitive performance.
jergul large member	Sun Feb 24 15:38:22 TJ I am not a fan of kale camps either, nor was I suggesting state mandated diet regimes. I do however dislike propaganda aimed at inflating our consumption of things healthy only in moderation. Just as I dislike subsidies and exceptions from environmental regulations to simplify production in volumes far beyond any reasonable consumption. I am fine with Lassaiz fair(e). I take exception to manipulation that takes years and smerts away from people. The heston comment was as I said. A temptation I could not resist. I know you are a muscle and sinew kind of guy who gets that way by eating because it must be done, not because it is much fun. I reserve the right to point out that most diets are shit, and that a little less shit would be good. Call it expression of my personal freedom :-).
TJ Member	Sun Feb 24 15:49:42 I appreciated the humor you posted about cold dead hands. Humor is good for all of us and I am in favor of, as well as, previously approved your expression of personal freedom. I'm smiling, a lingering result from laughing.
jergul large member	Sun Feb 24 15:54:49 At least we can honestly say that we are quite literally half the men of some posters in this forum (you know who you are) :D.
TJ Member	Sun Feb 24 16:30:50 Clever way to express the point. I would wager on such an assumption.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: