Culture may be encoded in DNA by kpo

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

In before the snark.

I think its possible. The idea that your sense of right and wrong COULD be influenced by genetics.

HOWEVER.

Being a free-thinking American, who knows the right of self-determination... I don't think thats ALL there is to it.

You still have a choice. You always have a choice.

It may not seem like it, and you may not have as many psychological walls built in, but you can still choose.

We are not robots, we are not sheep. We can CHOOSE to be those. But we can chhoose to be something different and better.

My 3 cents (added a penny for inflation)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 6:11 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

People think because we have this big dome of gray matter that we're somehow different from birds, lizards, and rats.

Well, we CAN BE, but usually we're not.

Underneath that big rind of exquisitely folded gray matter are several more layers of fully functional brain.... our monkey-brain, our lizard-brain, and even our worm-brain. These layers keep working, even as our fancy new brain tells us stories about why we do what we do. But often decisions are made unconsciously... the brain taking in data about the state of self (heat, muscle stretch, hunger, thirst, nearby companions, possibility of danger or reward) and make decisions for us... OOOPS! Time to scratch my nose, hit the john and grab a bite to eat, but don't get in my way or I'll get grumpy!....

We CAN use the new brain to be more fully conscious, but it takes training and insight. Most people still "react" rather than "think", and are still subject to their lizard-brains.

Or, as my sis says: Man is a rationalizing animal, not a rational one.

Quote:
You still have a choice. You always have a choice.

But only if you understand where your choices came from. Otherwise your choices control you, not the other way around.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 6:38 AM

Graaah...

That's not genetic culture, that's learning. They violated non-intervention in their study. Poor science.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 6:39 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Let me make clear that I haven't posted this as a response to Wulf's thread about the horrible black woman and 'black culture'... (I don't believe that woman's actions were encoded in her DNA.).

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 6:48 AM

There's a few signs that environmental stresses can affect genetic expression, but this works by changing what genes and therefore chemicals are expressed, not the genetic code itself.

They can't even demonstrate this is what's at work here. I find it unconvincing and really, honestly poor science if they're trying to claim these changes over generations are "genetic."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 6:50 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

(I don't believe that woman's actions were encoded in her DNA.).

Neither do I. Shocker.

But does a culture of nothing produce nothing?

Yes.

Does a culture of violence, hate, and victimization produce people who are violent, hatefilled and with a chip on their shoulder?

Yes.

Does a culture of materialism produce those that care nothing but for the "paper"?

Yes.

Does a culture that promotes misogyny, while also promoting feminism produce illigitimate families and a downward spiral that serves only to circle in on itself?

Yes.

This goes for ANY culture that has imploded. Any group that has decided to become dependant on others.

P.S. Any idea where I can buy a soapbox, a microphone, and a billy club? :) lol

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 6:56 AM

That is why Black peoples culture is in shambles all across the world....My point

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 7:04 AM

Wulf: now we're on to beating people, re: the billy club statement?

Kaneman: That probably has absolutely nothing to do with European conquerors and eugenicists that consider black people to be either undesireable - meaning in the way of the resources we want - or an exploitable labour force. Diamonds are a girl's best friend.

But, admittedly there is some interracial dispute between east African genetic pool and the west African genetic pool, and various groups and subgroups have been pitted against each other for politics and profit. Still not really sure you can call that cultural, it's more like the age old resource disputes that happen everywhere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 7:11 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"That is why Black peoples culture is in shambles all across the world....My point"

Sweetie, you are not helping. The "trick" to bringing people to the truth is NOT to beat them over the head with it. You have to present them with the facts, show them ideas, and then let THEM find their way.

For example: "Gun laws are racist, and are only about keeping blacks from getting guns.."

This may be true. But you have to back that up. Show them the history of gun laws, dating back to after the civil war, and how its was the Northerners who did not want black folks having guns, so THEY created "gun control" and Jim Crow" laws.

A person is generally smart. You can show them the truth, and present evidence. They will then figure things out on their own.

But by beating them over the head, you cause a "shut-down" effect. They will no longer listen, no longer seek answers. They retreat to that which they have known all their life.

In effect, by hammering the truth into someone, you create the opposite. They become more stubborn, more stupid. They refuse to reach beyond what has been drilled into them.

Make a statement, present the evidence. Allow them to see the truth in what you say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 7:14 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Wulf: now we're on to beating people, re: the billy club statement?"

It was a joke. Whya re people so unfamiliar with sarcasm?

What I meant was... Do I need a soapbox, and a microphone to make people listen? If so, will I need abilly-club to fight off my detractors?

I realize that words on a screen don't always convey the snark I mena to imply.

Humor, sarcasm and the rest are best left to face-to-face interaction. As that is the only way some can get it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 7:17 AM

"Wulf: now we're on to beating people, re: the billy club statement?"

Quote:
Do I need a soapbox, and a microphone to make people listen? If so, will I need a billy-club to fight off my detractors?

So... Yes, then.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 7:23 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

lol

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 7:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
But does a culture of nothing produce nothing?

Yes.

Does a culture of violence, hate, and victimization produce people who are violent, hatefilled and with a chip on their shoulder?

Yes.

Does a culture of materialism produce those that care nothing but for the "paper"?

Yes.

Does a culture that promotes misogyny, while also promoting feminism produce illigitimate families and a downward spiral that serves only to circle in on itself?

Yes.

This goes for ANY culture that has imploded. Any group that has decided to become dependant on others.

Wow. How can you have so much insight and not realize that it applies to YOU too???? Because you are, indeed, the product of such a culture.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 8:00 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Because you are, indeed, the product of such a culture."

Duh.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 8:14 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
There's a few signs that environmental stresses can affect genetic expression, but this works by changing what genes and therefore chemicals are expressed, not the genetic code itself.

They can't even demonstrate this is what's at work here. I find it unconvincing and really, honestly poor science if they're trying to claim these changes over generations are "genetic."

You've lost me I'm afraid. But this study was about showing that although songbirds may learn their song, there's also an innate inner sense in them that tells them how it should sound. You raise hatchlings in sound isolation, so that they get no chance to learn how to sing properly from their elders. Their song becomes warped. But sucessive generations of these birds, raised in the same isolation will gradually tweak the warped song, and evolve it back to the 'proper' song that is sung in the wild - even though not one of the birds has ever heard it. It's like the birds have an inner compass, that tell them how the song is supposed to sound.

It's a mirror of this theoretical experiment at the bottom of the article:

"...if you isolate human babies from culture, put them on an island and come back after a few generations, what would their culture be like? What sort of language would they have? What sort of politics would evolve?”

The study shows how both learning and innate sense combine to produce the bird's song, with possibly similar implications for human culture.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 8:29 AM

HKCAVALIER

I'm with Bytemite on this one.

Another factor scientists seem to absolutely LOVE discounting is mental/emotional health in determining behavior. I mean, what kind of sounds would you produce if some scientist raised you in a sound proof box? What if the "cacophony" of the isolated bird isn't an "emergent culture" but rather the ravings of tortured lunatic? Then when he trains the youngsters who have not suffered torture, they take his teachings but express them in a healthier, more pleasing way? Kinda like saying that an appreciation of sunsets is cultural and genetic because people all over the world appreciate sunsets. But then you lock a man in a windowless box for most of his life and when he's released the scientists note that every time he sees a sunset he shows signs of distress and produces lacrimal fluid in excessive amounts. Hmmm, an emergent culture that does not enjoy sunsets!

Exuse me while I

Then there's the issue of racial memory, the idea that experiences are recorded, y'know, somewhere and generations later are expressed--Jung's archetypes, that type o' thing. Or, and this is of course something scientists simply are not going to take into account, we could be dealing with past life memory--oh no, who let him in?

If such a phenomenon does exist, then it would have innumerable subtle effects on "the genome," but no scientist who didn't want to be laughed out of the profession would touch that with a ten foot pole.

As to black people in this country and incarceration rates and the like, seems to me that American style slavery over the course of 400 years might damage anyone, just a li'l bit--not just the slaves but the masters--particularly when it comes to issues of comfort and expectation. White people in this country expect certain things of black people; are comfortable with certain behavior from black people and extremely uncomfortable with other behavior. Black people, likewise, learned to expect certain things and accommodated themselves to certain "realities" of living in the part of the world. Prison life is an awful lot like slavery--a lot of expectations are being met on a culture-wide basis. No other slave population in world history has been so thoroughly removed from that populations natural environment, taken to a far distant continent and had their natural culture and language systematically "bred" out of them. America was like one giant sound proof/skinner box for the African peoples brought over here.

Yeah, but, by all means, Wulf, blame the descendants of the slaves--good call!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 8:40 AM

Quote:
If such a phenomenon does exist, then it would have innumerable subtle effects on "the genome," but no scientist who didn't want to be laughed out of the profession would touch that with a ten foot pole.

Actually... I'd agree with this, but I don't think Jungian is the way to describe it, or past life experience or racial memory.

I think this happens, and I think it's from controls on gene expression arising from environment stressors. This could theoretically go all the way up to the brain, and hardwire certain responses to common ideas, or archetypes, as Jung would say. As sig said, some of these responses can come from very primitive forms, and successive evolution has carried them through.

As for sunsets, a number of higher animals seem to share this appreciation. I suspect it's a social adaption, "the tribe gathers to sleep for the night" or "the pack gathers to go hunting." Wolves, dogs, coyotes and etc., are noted to sing most at sunset, and this seems to be the reason.

Kpo: Oops, when I saw "tweaked" I thought it meant the scientists tweaked this. Still, I think HK's on to something, though rather than it being a crazy guy, it's a deaf guy who's taught all his kids to yell so he can hear them. As they grow up, and have kids, they realize the effort to be that loud is not necessary for the function of speaking (or singing, in this case).

You might be able to argue birdsong is innate, but this is hardly proof for that. Basically, without multiple groups and without a control group, this study doesn't necessarily rule out any explanations. It only shows that this phenomenon happens. So making a claim off of this, about genetics or anything else, is jumping to a conclusion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 8:55 AM

I'm not sure I understand what the procedure was in this study. First, they raised a bunch of birds in a soundproof box so that they never heard the proper mating song? Then, another generation was created? How did that happen? Do they mean that males and females were able to find eachother as desirable mates even if noone was singing properly? Or did they have to introduce some artificial means of getting the birds to reproduce? I'm confused... Bkok!!

Also, as far as the whole "nature vs nurture debate", isn't "nature loads the gun and nurture pulls the trigger" the acknowledged case in most scenarios?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 8:58 AM

Someone needed a study to come up with this?

For the record I saw this study ages ago and it seemed fairly obvious to me. Nature/Nurture always seems an odd debate to me, both sides seem to say it's all one or the other, when it's obviously both.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 9:05 AM

Pun on "culture" and purported British superiority!

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitle0t9r68ih?from=Main.Do
ntExplainTheJoke

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 9:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Pun on "culture" and purported British superiority!

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitle0t9r68ih?from=Main.Do
ntExplainTheJoke

Well, that seems to be miles out of left field.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 9:16 AM

Er, sorry, I only saw the first version without the second line, and the wink, so I assumed you were making some kind of joke.

... I don't even know WHAT trope we're doing now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 9:30 AM

I'm also wondering what
"After three to four generations, the teachers were producing strapping young finches that belted out normal-sounding songs" means? Does that mean it sounded identical to birds raised in the wild? Or does that merely mean that the song had characteristics of wild bird song patterns? If the song just has characteristics, I'm with Citizen in that I'm not all that impressed -- and I'd like to see a couple of other trials to see if the pattern persists (I'm wondering if some of the birds would just remain squawkers...). If the song is actually identical to the wild birds, then that would be incredible (but I'd be suspicious that someone had tampered with the experiment and I'd still like to see some independent repeats.).

They go on to talk about what would happen if you put human babies on an island and came back in a few generations. That is kind of a silly hypothetical. Most likely, if you left a bunch of infants on an island, they'd die and never reproduce... So, you have to feed them at a minimum... But you can't speak to them (since you want to see how they will develop language). And you should probably nurture them in that first year of life, otherwise, they'll probably all have reactive attachment disorder, which would lead to the formation of a pretty strange society... This hypothetical is getting weirder and weirder. I'll stop now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 9:44 AM

REENACT12321

I actually have to agree with Wulf on many points.

I can't speak for the world, as Africa in particular has a whole laundry list of competing issues as to why it is.... the way it is.

But as for black culture in America, particularly urban black culture, I do have experience. Growing up in Chicago, quite possibly the most racially segregated city in the US, one can see the self-destructive sub-culture in the west and south sides. One can also see that a good percentage of people do not subscribe to that subculture. Many work very hard to compete against it, to create a stable life for family so that they are no pulled into that lifestyle either in their own or their child's lifetime.

Those who do subscribe to that lifestyle and do not take action to 1. Get out, 2. Support real action for change, or 3. Support law enforcement 4. get away from self-pity and entitlement (someone owes me something(which I'll come back to)) deserve to continue living in that environment. There should be an all-call made for those who want a chance to roll the die again (not a guaranteed job and housing, just a new start) to leave, to travel anywhere they want, 1 ticket. And for the rest, wall off Garfield Park, Englewood, Humboldt Park, and the rest and let them shoot it out, without effecting the communities around them. It's got nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with value systems, and a little to do with socioeconomics.

The entitlement thing comes from those who picked up the pieces of MLK's work after his assassination and decided to make profits out of the shards. Top of the list of these people is Jesse Jackson. I'm a liberal, albeit a moderate one, but this guy is the scum of the earth. Telling impoverished blacks that the "whitey" Alderman, Mayor, state Senators, governer, Federal Senators, and president all owe them something that these public servants don't owe anybody else. In the meantime, Jesse has several large homes, his mansion on the North side being his crown jewel.

My $0.02, okay maybe a bit more like $1.25

"...we need a hood ornament..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 9:48 AM

Malachite: An Egyptian pharaoh, trying to determine which civilization arose first, and therefore was the most natural, performed something very similar to the "babies on an island" experiment.

He was very surprised when the babies didn't spontaneously develop the ability to speak Egyptian as they grew into children, but that no less didn't change the fact that the entire thing was an example of an extremely poorly designed study.

I'm amazed that these "scientists" are making conjectures about the exact same issue, and making the same mistakes, as a PHARAOH FROM 6,000 YEARS AGO.

I'm sorry, I find the whole thing ridiculous.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 9:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Er, sorry, I only saw the first version without the second line, and the wink, so I assumed you were making some kind of joke.

Evidently this joke is one that did need explaining: It wasn't a joke.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 9:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm amazed that these "scientists" are making conjectures about the exact same issue, and making the same mistakes, as a PHARAOH FROM 6,000 YEARS AGO.

I'm sorry, I find the whole thing ridiculous.

I'd be careful making statements about what conclusions the Scientists have drawn from a write up of their study in a media source.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 10:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Malachite: An Egyptian pharaoh, trying to determine which civilization arose first, and therefore was the most natural, performed something very similar to the "babies on an island" experiment.

He was very surprised when the babies didn't spontaneously develop the ability to speak Egyptian as they grew into children, but that no less didn't change the fact that the entire thing was an example of an extremely poorly designed study.

I'm amazed that these "scientists" are making conjectures about the exact same issue, and making the same mistakes, as a PHARAOH FROM 6,000 YEARS AGO.

I'm sorry, I find the whole thing ridiculous.

Yeah, you sort of have to wonder about the quality of the bird experiment if the "scientists" bring up other ridiculous scenarios and think they are logical... But who knows? Sometimes smart people can be smart in some instances and say some pretty strange/illogical stuff in others... Francis Crick codiscovered DNA on the one hand and then supported "directed panspermia" (life evolved when some random alien biomolecules in space landed on the earth), which also doesn't have much, if any, hard evidence (according to wikipedia).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 10:05 AM

True, I remember Rue and I arguing over something like this in regards to a morality study. The write up sounded like a basic morality study, I was seeing more sinister undertones. Rue told me I couldn't possibly conclude the things I had determined from the study.

Of course, when I went to find the ABSTRACT, turned out that the study really WAS evaluating how consistent some people were making the choice to kill in an ethical dilemma, and claiming they did so because they were more "intelligent."

Really, I find that you can't trust write ups OR many studies to not have a slant. Skepticism must be practiced, and studies themselves must be read to determine whether proper procedure was followed.

Here's a better description, but still a write up.

http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2009/05/the_universal_grammar_
of_birdsong_is_genetically_encoded.php

I think this is the study, or at least a closely related one, dated 2004.

http://mitralab.org/papers-src/REG-13258681Doc.pdf

This one is also related, and has a conclusion I can buy a lot easier, that the neurology of the birds has some sort of constraint that eventually produces an auto-correction when trying to imitate a note.

http://www.mitralab.org/papers-src/ScienceMarch2001.pdf

Very likely a case of the write-up not fully understanding the science.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 10:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:

Yeah, you sort of have to wonder about the quality of the bird experiment if the "scientists" bring up other ridiculous scenarios and think they are logical... But who knows? Sometimes smart people can be smart in some instances and say some pretty strange/illogical stuff in others... Francis Crick codiscovered DNA on the one hand and then supported "directed panspermia" (life evolved when some random alien biomolecules in space landed on the earth), which also doesn't have much, if any, hard evidence (according to wikipedia).

The weird thing is, that's a theory that's become increasingly popular with the idea that water was seeded on earth by objects from space, as well as biomolecules from certain carbon rich meteorites. It's what they tried to push on me when I was in school.

Now, of course, they're starting to find more and more water on the moon than they ever anticipated, and thinking more about likely "material" rings that would form based on mass as the proto solar system "disk" collapsed and spun, and they're slowly building to an idea that Dreamtrove had a long while ago, which is that the MOON came from somewhere around Jupiter, and the Earth stole water from it en mass.

It's an interesting theory, and the more I've looked at the available evidence, the more it makes sense to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 10:22 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
He was very surprised when the babies didn't spontaneously develop the ability to speak Egyptian as they grew into children, but that no less didn't change the fact that the entire thing was an example of an extremely poorly designed study.

Yeah, I'm doubting the assumption that this is "culture." How much of the song has to do with the physical structure of the bird? Are their beaks and throats designed for that particular sound, since it's the only one that species makes? Make happens if "lost song" birds were raised with different species?

It seems that the bird scientists are arguing along the lines that English babies left alone for four generations will genetically revert to speaking English, Chinese babies speaking Chinese, etc. Maybe it should be more about how human babies always revert to making human noises while dog babies revert to dog noises.

One interesting study I recall as far as English/Chinese: The "r" sound is tough for a native Chinese speakers to make, but some scientists claimed that Chinese DNA'd babies who hear spoken English for their first year have no problem. I think this article was in Science magazine, or something like, a good decade ago, and the argument was that language patterns are set in the brain during year 1, even before babies speak.

(Not sure how that relates. Still trying to work out the meaning of this bird experiment.)

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 10:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Very likely a case of the write-up not fully understanding the science.

That was more what I was getting at. Its staggering the number of times people have told me some scientific law has been overturned (and we're talking the biggies, like thermodynamics and causality) because of some staggeringly badly written hack piece in the media.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 10:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
True, I remember Rue and I arguing over something like this in regards to a morality study. The write up sounded like a basic morality study, I was seeing more sinister undertones. Rue told me I couldn't possibly conclude the things I had determined from the study.

Of course, when I went to find the ABSTRACT, turned out that the study really WAS evaluating how consistent some people were making the choice to kill in an ethical dilemma, and claiming they did so because they were more "intelligent."

Really, I find that you can't trust write ups OR many studies to not have a slant. Skepticism must be practiced, and studies themselves must be read to determine whether proper procedure was followed. .

Ah yes... I think that was the thread that had the "Would you push a fat guy in front of a truck to save 5 people?" and "What would you do if you were the captain of a submarine with a leak?" questions in it.

Quote:

Here's a better description, but still a write up.

http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2009/05/the_universal_grammar_
of_birdsong_is_genetically_encoded.php

Rats, it froze my computer. The part I did read didn't seem to say the new generations developed the identical song, just a similar one...

Quote:

I think this is the study, dated 2004.

http://mitralab.org/papers-src/REG-13258681Doc.pdf

.

No, this appears to be describing the technology used to measure various aspects of bird songs, not the particular study in question. I could be wrong, I only scanned it, as it was pretty dry reading...

Quote:

This one is also related, and has a conclusion I can buy a lot easier, that the neurology of the birds has some sort of constraint that eventually produces an auto-correction when trying to imitate a note.

http://www.mitralab.org/papers-src/ScienceMarch2001.pdf

Very likely a case of the write-up not fully understanding the science.

Haven't looked at this link, yet, but that seems to be a bit more specific. Of course, there is probably some gene (or several) in the DNA that puts that "constraint" in place. ETA: And, this may make the original bird study we were discussing seem more logical -- though the questions about "culture" being inherited may still be up in the air.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 10:28 AM

Ooh, thanks for that, M4P. That actually is a perfect segue in to the study I found from the same people, above, the one dated March 2001.

It's possible that a certain neurological structure is DEVELOPED early on. In humans this structure is influenced by proximity to other humans. In birds... Maybe other birds?

In any case, it's often dangerous to make assumptions of atavism in biology and generations.

The reason I say that, well... Remember when I said you have to be careful about slants and biases? Some groups are out to "prove" or support ideas with studies you would never expect to be related.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism

Quote:
The notion of atavism was used frequently by social Darwinists, who claimed that inferior races displayed atavistic traits, and represented more primitive traits than their own race. Both the notion of atavism, and Haeckel's recapitulation theory, are saturated with notions of evolution as progress, as a march towards greater complexity and superior ability.

In addition, the concept of atavism as part of an individualistic explanation of the causes of criminal deviance was popularised by the Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso in the 1870s. He attempted to identify physical characteristics common to criminals and labeled those he found as atavistic, 'throwback' traits that determined 'primitive' criminal behavior. His statistical evidence and the notion that physical traits determine inevitable criminality (an idea closely related to the concepts of eugenics) have long since been debunked, but the concept that physical traits may affect the likelihood of criminal behavior in the individual remains popular in some circles.

Politics and science... Number one reason for healthy skepticism whenever you're reading ANYTHING.

But this is about birds, you say. Studies of animals are often a jumping off point for studies to try to understand HUMAN development.

Maybe that's what's happening here, maybe not, but I'm familiar enough with the dark side of atavism social theories that I tend to step carefully when I see claims of atavism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 10:40 AM

Neat discussion, all... You've made this last half hour fly by. Thanks!

Citizen: Great reminder about not judging a study by its media coverage

Mal4Prez: Thanks for the alternate hypothesis. I'm more on board with that than with "Culture is in the DNA"..

Byte: Thanks for the links with more solid evidence. You also mentioned Rue. I haven't seen any posts from her lately. Did she retire?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 10:44 AM

Not that I know of. I see Sig around sometimes, they're coworkers. She might just be busy.

I'd be interested to know what SHE thinks, she and Sig are more biologist than me. Plus I thought up a great zoology dirty joke that I think I could get a laugh out of both of them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 11:26 AM

The only thing worse than me saying that our Big-lip brethren are animals and live as such .....is you people debating about it.

...Have you any shame?... Really...I am a black women and find your debate repulsive...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 11:26 AM

The only thing worse than me saying that our Big-lip brethren are animals and live as such .....is you people debating about it.

...Have you any shame?... Really...I am a black women and find your debate repulsive...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 11:26 AM

The only thing worse than me saying that our Big-lip brethren are animals and live as such .....is you people debating about it.

...Have you any shame?... Really...I am a black women and find your debate repulsive...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 11:31 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Does a culture of violence, hate, and victimization produce people who are violent, hatefilled and with a chip on their shoulder?

Yes.

Does a culture of materialism produce those that care nothing but for the "paper"?

Yes.

How did the same culture produce both Hitler and Einstein then?

How did the Jewish culture produce Christ?

Quote:

Does a culture that promotes misogyny, while also promoting feminism produce illigitimate families and a downward spiral that serves only to circle in on itself?

Yes.

Assumes evidence not introduced into the debate. I know of no culture that promotes both misogyny AND feminism. And what is an "illegitimate family"?

Quote:
This goes for ANY culture that has imploded. Any group that has decided to become dependant on others.

Like all capitalists?

They are, by definition, dependent on the capital of others.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
The only thing worse than me saying that our Big-lip brethren are animals and live as such .....is you people debating about it. ...Have you any shame?... Really...I am a black women and find your debate repulsive...

I'm a scientist. We generally lack shame, it's a tragic flaw.

We also lack self-awareness, humility, hygiene, and general common sense!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 12:24 PM

DREAMTROVE

I aree with citizen, they've proven something fairly obvious, which is only half the puzzle. But I don't belittle the fact that they've proven it.

Byte, I would refer you to this line :"But if there are no vocal role models around, the song will deviate from the traditional song and be harsh to female finch ears"

if so, that would be a lock. Personally, I think they're golden here.

I skipped the vast swath of this thread that was not discussing birds. Birds are relatively simple animals, other creatures are more complex, and it's hard to figure what they would cotton to, but here we have some pretty clear indications of what might explain some of human behavior. For instance, children of indo Europeans love indo european fairy tales. They are their favorite stories as children, and as adults, given basically zero media or cultural encouragement in that direction. Equally I find people of other backgrounds are drawn to other cultures. I know many people who are so liberal that they react against their own europeans backgrounds in favor of others, and still show this draw to indo European backgrounds, listen to classical music, read fairy tales and can't stand rap, hip hop or R&B, and I have to figure they've really tried.

Now none of this is an indicator of BEHAVIOR. it's an indication of tastes, like those of the bird. Those tastes in the birds also affect their mating behavior and social structure, and so if they have a genetic basis would be passed on.

What i don't credit is that the bird is physically limited to this. I listened to all the songs and it's clear that the bird can make all kinds of sounds.

I suspect something like this happened, and it's simpler than people are making it out to be:

1) the females mated with available males,even if they found their songs whiny, because there was no competition.

2) then there was competition. Male brids competed with each other for better pick up lines, and the females mated with those with the songs that pushed their buttons. It was probably not a genetic difference between the birds in question, and the birds probably learned new tricks all the time in their competition.

3) the third generation of birds gamed the system, and learneed the perfect song that exactly fit the pattern preprogramm into the female birds brains, and I do mean genetically. After that, nothing particularly interesting happened.

What I find fascinating is what the birds created in the interim. It reminds me of the foundations of early human cultures, and how it might have happened, and how, they, too, fell into a patter of ritual after the third generation. You find this in early india,Greece, china, mezoamerica, and you find it here in the united states.

Think about it. What we like about the USA is generally the society that was created in the interim, during the first three generations, which was different from the norm of human societies. This might spell unfortunate things about the true nature of human society and where it will lead when our descendants perfectly game the system of our deep coded secret dresires.

Something to gnaw on anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

One interesting study I recall as far as English/Chinese: The "r" sound is tough for a native Chinese speakers to make, but some scientists claimed that Chinese DNA'd babies who hear spoken English for their first year have no problem. I think this article was in Science magazine, or something like, a good decade ago, and the argument was that language patterns are set in the brain during year 1, even before babies speak.

I think you might be on to something, but I dispute the "year 1" part of it. I'm a case study in this, in a way. I'm not "Chinese DNA'd", but moved to Taiwan when I was 2, when I was learning to speak, and was around the Chinese culture for a few formative years. When we moved back to the States, I had to have speech therapy classes, because I had trouble with the "R" sound.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 1:47 PM

We used to have a mockingbird that hung out near the loading dock, and one of the guys' wife would always call him at break time, and he had his phone set to the "Euro-style" ringtone ("BBRRRRTT-BBRRRRTT" - two rings in quick succession). One day we all heard it, and were looking around, because Ronaldo wasn't there that day. We were looking EVERYWHERE for that damned phone - and then I realized what it was: it was the mockingbird! He was just doing what he thought he should do...

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 3:37 PM

DT, I disagree with this, but I have to think about why.

I do have a few thoughts.

Quote:
Those tastes in the birds also affect their mating behavior and social structure, and so if they have a genetic basis would be passed on.

I think studies have overemphasized the "song preference" element of bird mating behaviour. Hybridized species often occur where there is overlap, even though the species will have different songs because of geographical location.

I think maybe claiming this is genetic is taking this belief in bird song preference to an extreme end. Bird song preference is probably important, but it doesn't seem to be the everything people think it is. I don't think we fully understand what influences the choices here.

We also have nothing really to suggest definitively that this has a genetic basis; I'm not sure why it would need to be learned and relearned if so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 3:49 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I think it's culture, more than skin color or anything else, that keeps us at odds.

And I think culture , more than anything else, is learned, not imprinted.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 6:47 PM

DREAMTROVE

Byte

The male birds modified their song towards a common song, they did so to attract the females, I think thats very likely. That would point to a genetic tendency.

Birds in different regions are very varied genetically. Chickadees show radical genetic difference within the species based on area. Song preference is a fairly minor difference. Probably very close to random, but still, it seems, genetic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 6:51 PM