psychobabble

wtf is this guy talking about?:

“Why genes are leftwing”

“When the map of the human genome was presented to the world in 2001, psychiatrists had high hopes for it. Itemising all our genes would surely provide molecular evidence that the main cause of mental illness was genetic – something psychiatrists had long believed. Drug companies were wetting their lips at the prospect of massive profits from unique potions for every idiosyncrasy.

“But a decade later, unnoticed by the media, the human genome project has not delivered what the psychiatrists hoped: we now know that genes play little part in why one sibling, social class or ethnic group is more likely to suffer mental health problems than another….

“…Genes hardly explained at all why some children have ADHD and not others.

“That was illustrated recently in a heavily publicised study by Anita Thapar, of Cardiff University. Although she claimed to have proved that ADHD is a “genetic disease”, if anything, she proved the opposite. Only 16% of the children with ADHD in her study had the pattern of genes that she claimed causes the illness. Taken at face value, her study proved that non-genetic factors cause it in 8 out of 10 children….”

james is (was?) a clinical child psychologist so he oughta know that adhd is NOT one thing. so, why would he presume that, if there is something genetic to these conditionsss, that it would be just ONE gene or ONE pattern of genes involved??

just because there’s not one single gene or one pattern of genes causing adhd doesn’t mean genes are not involved. and, just ’cause genes are involved does not mean that the environment is not!

nature AND nuture, already! duh.

lame, mr. james. very lame. (guess we wouldn’t want book sales to drop, would we?)

not hbd chick

(note: comments do not require an email.)

clueless

been seein’ a lot of articles like this lately:

Europe’s Identity Crisis Fuels Rising Anti-Muslim Sentiment

“LONDON (Oct. 16) — Since the end of World War II Germany has prided itself on being a beacon of tolerance, removed from the petty hatreds that once tore Europe apart. But according to a national survey released this week, a new form of ugly xenophobia — this time focused on Muslims, who make up around 5.5 percent of the population — is gaining mass acceptance. More than 55 percent of those polled by researchers from the University of Leipzig declared that Arabs weren’t pleasant people — up from 44 percent in 2003 — and 58 percent said the practice of Islam should be ‘considerably restricted.’

“Islamophobia isn’t only on the rise in Germany. A powerful and populist strain of anti-Muslim sentiment is now taking hold across Europe — boosting support for far-right groups, and putting mainstream politicians on the defensive….”

europe’s identity crisis is fueling anti-muslim sentiment?? jesus f*cking christ, do people really believe this cr*p??

MIGRATION OF MUSLIMS into europe is fueling anti-muslim sentiment in europe – just like migration of ANY group of people into any other group’s territory would fuel “anti” sentiments! just imagine how the amerindians felt about the white man!

like all forms of organic life on this god-forsaken rock, any given population of humans AIN’T gonna be predisposed to share its resources (read: territory) with an unrelated group (“related” being a relative [heh!] term) – this is the flip-side of altruism. xenophobia and altruism – a couple of social behaviors elegantly explained by inclusive fitness.

and reluctance to share with unrelated peoples really doesn’t go down well in tough economic times, so what you see right now in europe is gonna get worse. a lot worse.

from a review of Hamilton’s “Narrow Roads of Gene Land, Volume 2” (via race/history/evolution notes):

“Hamilton is an unabashed, no-fig-leaf naturist. He believes that genetics, not nurture, accounts for a large and important range of human behaviour — from racism and xenophobia to differences in intellectual abilities between men and women — and that only by admitting and understanding this, only by casting aside hypocrisy on the matter, can fundamental human problems be tackled. As an example, he argues that a basic cause (emphatically not a justification) of racism — and, particularly, of ethnically motivated genocide — is a differential birth rate between groups. And, yes, he does extend this to the Nazi extermination of Jews.”

it doesn’t matter if we, today, don’t live in a malthusian world. the point is that our ancestors did – and we have inherited their feelings and sentiments when it comes to sharing our resources. from Hamilton himself (again via race/history/evolution notes):

“I suggested it might be useful for us to discuss the psychology of population situations and to give special attention to those where closely placed or intermixed distinct groups had strikingly different rates of increase. In particular, it might be useful to consider what this might do to competitive birth rates and aggressive instincts connected with population perceptions – in fact, also with the inception of wars….

“The silence that came surprised and unsettled me, so I added something about every one having pride in his or her family and, perhaps not wanting to see descendants lost in a sea of strangers; while, in anything like a democracy, people would be not liking to imagine their own preferences and way of life being over-ridden by decisions deriving from ways of life either – for example, not caring about the countryside, urbanizing as far as possible, and so on….

“In an effort to be more explicit and to be taken more seriously, I then exposed some corner of my actual work, saying something about how we were all expected, as a result of population genetical processes – natural selection in fact – to have psychological biases that wouldn’t necessarily be easily visible on the surface but whose reality would come to the fore in situations where these rapid changes in a population’s composition were imminent. There was a matter of within- and between-group variances involved here, this applying to the very genes that made us. It wasn’t necessary to such ideas, I added, that shortages of land or whatever would be apparent right when divisive psychology took effect; it would be in this nature of the group psychology to anticipate what might be about to happen…. If we really wanted to understand why population is a difficult issue to discuss and to do anything about it in the world, I continued … it is very essential that we understand the evolutionary forces that have moulded reproductive and territorial psychology in humans – the features must be old, of course, started doubtless mainly in our Old Stone Age past.”

when the next round of ethnic-troubles|wars|genocides come – and come they will (sooner rather than later, i’m afraid) – it will not be the fault of the man-on-the-street participants. it will be the fault of the politicians and policy makers who are busy crafting this new balkanization.

(note: comments do not require an email.)