Science has proven that personality traits, emotions, and even political views are almost entirely genetic and that environment/history/culture plays a very minor role.
Why do leftists take this man seriously when he's been proven WRONG?
Blank slatism/social constructionism is bullshit.
>be OP
>be either unable to disagree with something without gratuitous hyperbole or just really be this dumb
>play with own shit
Kill yourself
>hyperbole
How is it hyperbole when it's actually what he believed and wrote about
also:
>hurr ur dum
kill yourself
You’ve moved from the extreme of social constructionism to
>even political views are almost entirely genetic
When even psychologists that put the most emphasis on the biological side of this kind of thing don’t say that
moron
>Science has proven that personality traits, emotions, and even political views are almost entirely genetic and that environment/history/culture plays a very minor role.
[citation needed]
damn i just bought the Order of Things an hour ago
Listing political views gets to the real point of the issue. Genetic predispositions and arrangements are expressed and filtered through culture. You can say that people who have same-sex desires and perhaps behave homosexually have physiological, neurological and genetic differences which distinguish them from their heterosexual counterparts, but how that interacts with their perception of their own personhood, identity and values, and how they act upon it within the culture they exist in plays a strong part too. In Greek antiquity the socially acceptable and, as far as we know, most prevalent kind of homosexual behaviour was pederasty. In contemporary Western culture it is through relationships of relatively equal age and status. To speak broadly (perhaps too broadly): a person's physiological makeup might subject them to homosexual impulses, but those homosexual impulses are then subjected to the possibilities inherent in their environment.
Politics, if they are indeed strongly genetic, demonstrate this even further. They have to, by their essence, since politics is hugely circumstantial.
i put an archaeology of knowledge epub in my phone but i didnt read yet
>You’ve moved from the extreme of social constructionism to
>>even political views are almost entirely genetic
If everything is socially constructed then political views are ALSO socially constructed.
I mean, how fucking stupid are you?
>[citation needed]
Read this:
thealternativehypothesis.org
There are countless peer reviewed papers within this article, so those are the sources, this article just makes it clear for the layman.
>damn i just bought the Order of Things an hour ago
Wow imagine being this stupid and in denial of genetics.
>Politics, if they are indeed strongly genetic
They are.
thealternativehypothesis.org
Do you have anything to say about the rest of my post though? No one is born identifying as gay or straight, or as being a liberal or a republican or an apolitical egoist. These concepts are explicitly dependent on the world we inhabit as determined by a million small and massive forces of history before and during our lives. The language we use to describe even obvious, unquestionably extant things, affects our perception of them, and how we act in turn.
>No one is born identifying as gay or straight
I'm gay.
My homosexuality stems from genetics/epigenetics and a tiny bit of my childhood.
>or as being a liberal or a republican or an apolitical egoist.
Political views are at LEAST 40% genetically heritable.
thealternativehypothesis.org
>as determined by a million small and massive forces of history before and during our lives.
This "history" stems from the genetics of people who created this history.
I'm gay too, and I certainly agree that the roots of my sexual preference go deep. How I think about it does too, but in ways long preceding my birth. Political views being inheritable is a statement that needs to be heavily qualified. I'll read your link soon of course, and I can't claim to have engaged with it before then (I'm taking a little break). But my point is that whatever it is that is inherited, it HAS to be incredibly reactive to the world around it. It has to take shape according to cultural influences. That's the very nature of politics. It might seem easy to simply say "yes politics is inherited" if you think more or less in a two-party system, or just in fixed generic attitudes of "conservatism" and "liberals" are within a certain political culture. But Liberalism, a supremely multi-faceted, diverse trend of modern political philosophy... you can't just have that written in your DNA. A hundred years ago no one advocated gay marriage. Now its law. The circumstances of thought and attitude completely change.
>If everything is socially constructed then political views are ALSO socially constructed.
There is a middle ground between the two points of view you fucking retard, if you knew anything about the effects of genetics on behaviour you'd know there's a thing called a diathesis stress model which shows that genetics may predispose you to certain behaviours - as long as a certain environment is available - as this user gives examples of. Dumbass.
>Political views are at LEAST 40% genetically heritable.
Really? So why did you say
>even political views are almost entirely genetic
Could it be because you were disagreeing with something with a stupid amount of hyperbole?
>mfw you're so dumb you don't even know when you're wrong
Oh Jesus Christ
>It's another episode of user doesn't understand what "heritability" means
Every time. You and the "Bell Curve" dipshits
>Political views being inheritable is a statement that needs to be heavily qualified.
It is though.
See the link I posted.
Science/genetics has PROVED it is.
Do you hate science or something?
Read the article or watch this extremely interesting video:
youtube.com
>But my point is that whatever it is that is inherited, it HAS to be incredibly reactive to the world around it.
Yes, the environment plays a role as well, but not as much.
All we are saying is that genetics plays and extreme role, much more than you people would expect. Nobody ever said it was 100% genetic.
>There is a middle ground between the two points of view you fucking retard
Yes, Foucault never took this middle ground, he was a social constructionist through and through.
>genetics may predispose you to certain behaviours - as long as a certain environment is available
Yes I agree with this.
How the fuck does this dispute my argument whatsoever?
You brainlet.
>>even political views are almost entirely genetic
Because even though on paper and in the studies they are 40% inheritable, there are countless other factors like the genetic mesh which increases this number much higher.
>I've never read the bell curve
>I still don't understand what heritability means
>those evil racists are wrong though because they're EEEVVIIILLLL
Kraut and Tea is that you?
Want to get btfo even more by Ryan?
kek why did I fall for this epic bait
>even knowing about yt drama
>I don't even need to have an argument
>being a social outcast
nobody cares about you
>tfw nobody can refute the fact that foucault was wrong on his core principles
The rest of what he said was bullshit too.
You literally mixed up the words "heritability" and "inheritable" in one of your posts, you dumb faggot.
>thealternativehypothesis.org
>For example, IQ scores.
dropped
>murican soical studies
Remind me to discard any of this shit in future.
what does it mean for something to be X% heritable?
So? I'm drunk.
You should be able to differentiate when people mistype words.
This sounds like a "you" problem.
>dropped
You're dropping actual scientific data?
Why? Because it triggers you?
IQ tests are G loaded.
Do you even know what that means you absolute brainlet.
It's like you think it's impossible to even measure intelligence.
en.wikipedia.org
>Remind me to discard any of this shit in future.
Imagine actually being this stupid.
How it is even possible to make statements in fields of sociology and psychology using methods of natural science?
>How the fuck does this dispute my argument whatsoever?
Look at your original post and the claim you made about political views being almost entirely determined by genetics, and now look at how in the post I quoted you agree that the relationship with the environment is important. I’m not going to walk you through this again, goodbye brainlet.
Put as simply as possible: Heritability is a measure of how much genetics affect the variation of a trait in a population.
So something with 40% heritability, like OP posted, means that 40% of the variation of political belief in a population is due to genetics. It doesn't mean that 40% of an individual's political beliefs are decided by your genes. Heritability isn't meant to be applied to individuals.
You can, in a sense, but it still would only (sort of) tell you that 40% of the total difference between yours and the "average" political stance is genetic. So if you were 10 points to the right of the political average of your population, 4 of those points would be your genetics. But this is more of an example, as, again, heritability isn't applied to individuals.
because human behavior is based on human genetics, dipshit.
>Look at your original post and the claim you made about political views being almost entirely determined by genetics
alright, then I was mostly exaggerating because in reality, it's 40%-60%.
Still, it's far far greater than the 0% leftists and social constructionist turds believe.
>with the environment is important
It is important, but genetics is more important.
This is why your precious communism is impossible.
>Not caring about ecelebs makes you the social outcast
It's funny because even with leftists, political views are determined by genes because they are in effect black nationalists.
They're still nationalistic, just not for their own race.
you're trying too hard now.
had me going there for a second though.
Im trying to understand Foucault. What where his core principals? What point was he trying to make?
Im reading stuff about him that ultimately doesnt help me. It says first he wanted to write about authority, then realized he was actually writing about power, but then he changed his mind again and said the whole point of his lifes work was examining extreme human experiences? What?
I know the meme that all institutions resemble prisons, and that people are trying to tell me that the society we live in resembles Benthams panopticon, but what is the point? Things resemble other things.
Power relations exist.
People thought of crazy people one way and later thought of them differently.
Whats the punchline?
Im a brainlet, please help.
>alright, then I was mostly exaggerating because in reality, it's 40%-60%.
thank you for admitting you were wrong
>This is why your precious communism is impossible.
just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're on the opposite side of the political spectrum as you, only you are retarded enough to take that kind of stance.
so you're admitting this thread was mostly bait and got me excited for nothing. i read your article and hoped that it was some kind of new scientific revelation that was going to prove biological determinism or something, but it wasn't. it just confirms what everyone already knows: genetics play a big role in forming who you are. thanks for nothing jackass.
Eheheh, you got disciplined and punished ;)
kek
>the internet isn't a massive part of popular culture in 2018
leftists are basically black nationalists even if they say they arent
>What where his core principals?
denial of genetics, thinks everything is a social construct or historically construct
he's basically retarded
he's interesting to read if you're curious about why humans were wrong about things in the past
>thank you for admitting you were wrong
You're wrong as well.
40-60% is much higher than what you thought it was
>so you're admitting this thread was mostly bait
It's not.
It's just exposing social constructionist for the retards they are.
> i read your article and hoped that it was some kind of new scientific revelation that was going to prove biological determinism or something, but it wasn't.
You didn't read anything you liar.
>it just confirms what everyone already knows: genetics play a big role in forming who you are.
95% of the country doesn't believe this lol
>>the internet isn't a massive part of popular culture in 2018
This doesnt mean that normal people know Diversity and Comics
thanks. I'd like to learn more about genetics now. this is all very interesting.
I read the entire thing and downloaded pdf copies of most of the studies. I'm reading the Bouchard one now. Idk why you're so hostile.
>95% of the country doesn't believe this
which country? what evidence do you have to support this claim about whatever country it is you're talking about?
>This doesnt mean that normal people know Diversity and Comics
people know about youtube and youtube debates though, you absolute brainlet
>I read the entire thing and downloaded pdf copies of most of the studies. I'm reading the Bouchard one now. Idk why you're so hostile.
reply to me when you've read them and understood them.
also read the althype article so the implications of these studies become realized
>which country?
USA.
Half of the country doesn't believe in evoltion, the other half of the country doesn't believe evolution applies to human personality traits and race.
It's probably not 95% but pretty damn close.
also Europe isn't far off
you're not fucking getting it. you made a claim that nearly all political belief is genetic when the evidence you provided does not support that. You're just really big on making absurdly hyperbolic statements for some fucking reason. Thanks for the reading material but I'm gonna take my leave of your obnoxious ass.
From this thread it's clear OP is retarded and he comes from a family of retards.
>people know about youtube and youtube debates though
>goal post shifting
The point is, nobody sane cares about the losers DEBATING, brainlet. Go ask your high school crush what she thinks about kraut and tea's inability to grasp the reproductive behavior of trouts.
man I'm drunk and I have to go listen to 80s music while drunk
but yeah 40%-60% of poltical views are genetic.
I'll admit that
>hurr you were wrong
lol you thought it was 0
dont say you didnt believe this
>DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR HUMAN BEHAVIOR IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT
IMAGINE actually being this retarded
god damn
>>goal post shifting
Nah lol
>The point is, nobody sane cares about the losers DEBATING, brainlet.
10s of thousands of people do though.
Why do you think kraut got so btfo he deleted his channel?
Why did mister metokur make 4 videos btfo him.
His arguments were embarrassing.
All anti racial arguments are embarrassing.
i didn't have any opinions on it until this information was presented to me, if pressed for a percentage i would have likely said 10-30%. i don't know why you think you're fucking psychic.
>You're wrong as well.
>40-60% is much higher than what you thought it was
You're making things up again, idiot.
>if pressed for a percentage i would have likely said 10-30%
thats nice
it's 40-60% though
I hope you learned from today.
>You're making things up again, idiot.
All of the sources I posted CONFIRM this.
I swear, you evolution deniers are absolute brainets.
Imagine actually denying genetics.
The establishment and the church hated charles darwin as much as modern leftists hate the "alt right" today.
Evolution and racialism is true whether you like it or not.
>I swear, you evolution deniers are absolute brainets.
No, you dumbfuck, I said you were making things up about what other people (i.e me) thought. I never denied the role of genetics, in the very first reply to this thread I disagreed with the extent to which you said genetics play a role(i.e almost entirely responsible).
Learn to fucking read.
put on a trip then
either way, you probably agree with me then, why don't you want to fight the other brainlets like leftist pieces of shit like I do then?
I bet you're a conflicted leftist yourself
legit kys, you're an unbearably smug prick and i wish nothing but pain and misery in your life, drink yourself to death tonight.
You've spent this entire thread accusing people who are encouraging you to take a more nuanced view of these topics(and helping you be more accurate) of being 'leftists'. I am doing you a favour here by telling you that you are a brainlet, you should start reading proper books and not getting information from youtube personalities because that is lazy and stupid.
Not everyone who disagrees with your dumbfuck worldview is a communist, in fact the way you behave is the equivalent of a left-wing SJW accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being a racist/fascist. You really are the other side of the coin.
Why cite Foucault when he got most of his criticism of science from Nietzsche, or does he not fit the "leftist faggot" persona your OP is directed at?
> Posting an alt-right website as source
>muh behaviorism and evolutionary psychology
kys
>Science has proven that personality traits, emotions, and even political views are almost entirely genetic and that environment/history/culture plays a very minor role.
>Blank slatism/social constructionism is bullshit.
>Why do leftists take this man seriously when he's been proven WRONG?
Which specific claims by Foucault do you think have been disproved?
The scientific enquiry is based on making classifications of objects that are completely arbitrary and based on axioms--thus a set of belief. He warned about making science a dogma.
Eras of human history are characterised by epistémès, epistemological fields aka sets of axioms through which people define and view the world. He warned about thinking our knowledge is purely objective and that it is the last stage of human knowledge.
He warned about thinking our current world is better than the past.
He warned about being exclusionary.
He warned that the state is now more interested in controlling how people think and behave rather than controlling territories.
> He just asked people don't be dicks to each others and don't use science as a base to exclude people from enjoying their life
>It's like you think it's impossible to even measure intelligence
It is. G is an approximation, it's not 'intelligence'. We don't even understand the brain fully yet.
The link's chart says political views are at 0.0 before age 20, then become .40 after age 20. If that were true you'd see a lot of switching political ideologies at 20, but statiscally people remain in the party they were raised in.
>because human behavior is based on human genetics, dipshit.
It is also based on environment. Pure determinism is just as nonsencical as blank slate.
...
>Thinking this is a scientific article
>eceleb debates
>this is your brain on pol
I agree pol is shit, but some of the links are legit
>scn.ucla.edu
If I'm reading this one correctly, it identifies an allele that explains socialist and capitalist tendencies. And it's plausible that those lacking "social sensitivity" were more likely to emigrate to America, leading to this relatively conservative country we have here.
>science has proven that it's always nature over nurture
god you have no idea
...
/thread
>And it's plausible that those lacking "social sensitivity" were more likely to emigrate to America,
When were you when america was scientifically proven to be autistic?
Why do you guys ALWAYS have to oppose politics?? Why are you addressing this post to leftist? Have you even read Foucault? You'll realize it's far from being pleb level political writings.
Not autistic, sociopathic. Sociopaths make for excellent capitalists.
Check'd
Ahem, guys, all this talk about Heritability isnt taking into account that you inherit traits and behavior via DNA shaping telepathy and genetic memory imprint, so its not just traits, its juste whole subsets of behaviors.
Are there actually marxists on this board?
lol how fucking stupid do you have to be?
>Have you even read Foucault?
yeah, he's a retard
>god you have no idea
YOU have no idea you brain damaged leftist, holy shit you brainlet
>>Thinking this is a scientific article
They ARE scientific articles though.
Why are you so mad that they prove you anti-evolutionists wrong ?
>It is also based on environment.
No shit you absolute brainlet.
Look at the studies OP is talking about.
>Pure determinism is just as nonsencical as blank slate.
Who is a pure geneticists here?
G actually explains MOST of the things we call "intelligence" though
>but that's wrong
Why does BILL NYE deny human evolution now?
Holy fuck
social constructionism
>muh denial of reality
imagine being this brainwashed
Academic sources are linked in the article though
>being this mad and butthurt with no argument
A bit of a sociopathic thing to say
This ENTIRE FUCKING BOARD is bullshit.
Can you guys actually believe that THIS MANY FUCKING PEOPLE deny human evolution and believe what that pseudoscience foucuck believed.
What kind of a brain damaged retard do you have to be to believe in this religious fundamentalism?
Science debunked this bullshit already.
Just slaughter every single one of these people.
Every time i try to take these people seriously and analyse any of the "sources" they hand, i find that the statistical analysis is atrociously flawed, (samples with huge margins of error, retarded "axiomatic" assumptions, etc.) I'm not by any means, autorised enough to question the results of studies done in reputable universities, but some times you have to look beyond the conclussions and charts.
I actually hate Foucault but my hate is weaker than the fun shilling him here ended up to be.
>Enlightenment construct proves beliefs of Enlightenment true!
Fuck neoliberals
>it’s another “everything is genetic (so let’s gas the kikes, race war now!) thread”
>Nationalism is genetic.
>Nations are an invention.
>The creators and spokesmen of those creators had to convince people thus creating national indentity.
>There are genetic bases for nationalist belief.
>A whole new human phenotype was created epigenetically when nations were invented.
>Those who are and were nationalists had "sum genetical disposition" or "nationalism was hardcoded in their genes even before it was invented"
This is your brain on sociobiology.
It's the work of a better historian than actual historians. It's just a great description of the regimes of thought that made up certain regimes of life.
Disregard biological determinists.
...
Im not even focaultian but god, this thread is terrible and 89IQ.
The only good post is this one but wingcuck fundamentalists are too dumb to make dealings with it.
>nationalism is real
>ethos is real
>social organization is more than the sum of the interractions of individuals
It's not
Dubious studies about muh unconscious biases and stereotype threats are always taken as true, no matter how flimsy the evidence, while studies about genetics and IQ are dismissed no matter how solid the evidence. In the end, its ideological, leftoids are dogmatic believers in social enginneering and radical social constructionism, if people aren't equal they should be made equal by the state, through struggle sessions and control over all aspects of life and thinking.
>YouTube
>Guys seriously look at this peer review o even linked the article
>Why aren't you taking me seriously, its cites peer review
>I bet you don't even have peers libtards
>Unironically believing in an extra- genetic phenomenon, KEK
>Check out this highly informative YouTube vlogger
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA
I'm not a native speaker and i don't fully understand what you're trying to say.
Are you suggesting that there's no way new things that weren't determined in beforehand can be made from a certain "energy reservoir". If that's what you're saying, you're giving for granted what interactions are made of, and what individuals are. There's actually much more to the "social organization" than human interactions.
I'm actually talking about the IQ and genetics studies my dude, you misunderstood the post. The last "IQ is genetically determined" post linked a study about MZ and DZG twins. The sample was made of around 100 MZ twins and like 500 DZG twins. also taking for granted that the enviroment of the twins was 100% the same (even if they had different studies). In a study like that any evidence is the product of a biased approach. You just can't compare a group of 500 people with a group of 100 people and try to do a lineal regression analysis. The statistical and scientifical validity of a study with such charasteristics is fucking zero.
The studies about muh unconscious biases and stereotype threats are far flimsier, yet you insist they be treated as gospel
That doesn’t necessarily conflict with social constructionism.
Like money, for example, is a socially constructed thing. A bank note doesn’t have intrinsic value, but within a specific social system it has action which go well beyond merely being a slip of paper. Because the paper is not merely paper, it carries with it an extra thing, the location of that thing is not actually in the chemical and physical make up of the thing itself, but rather that extra fact which makes money money, that location is inside the symbolic order of society.
All words in every language are defined by convention, in order words, they are socially established.
>Science has proven that personality traits, emotions, and even political views are almost entirely genetic and that environment/history/culture plays a very minor role.
Even if this were so (and no, there's no overwhelming consensus as you seem to believe): genetics is soon to be considered deprecated in light of memetics as we're living in silicon. There's very little proof humans actually "exist", you see, even today, studies are indicating behaviour is mostly a factor of PHP subroutines. Since the theory that people "think" is outdated you have to update your pedagogical methods to factor into hacking their memes.
I'm not saying that sociological studies are absolute truth. There are good and bad studies. You just know that a study is bad when it reduces everything to any other thing, be it "society" or "nature".
Is this board full of 15 year olds or is this thread just OP arguing with himself?
>there are good and bad studies
It's simple: The good ones promote your egalitarian intersectional management ideology, the bad ones are those who put any of its assumptions in doubt
It's probably both
Actually the second kind came to critique the first kind. With pretty good results. This proves that science has to convince and then It becomes truth. You cant analyse science as a isolated black box, science and society are one and the same thing.