Cultural differences: A DNA link?
 

'East Asian and European cultures have long been very different, Richard Nisbett argued in his recent book "The Geography of Thought." East Asians tend to be more interdependent than the individualists of the West, which he attributed to the social constraints and central control handed down as part of the rice-farming techniques Asians have practiced for thousands of years.
Â*
A separate explanation for such long-lasting character traits may be emerging from the human genome. Humans have continued to evolve throughout prehistory and perhaps to the present day, according to a new analysis of the genome reported last week by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago.
Â*
Napoleon Chagnon for many decades studied the Yanomamo, a warlike people who live in the forests of Brazil and Venezuela. He found that men who had killed in battle had three times as many children as those who had not. Since personality is heritable, this would be a mechanism for Yanomamo nature to evolve and become fiercer than usual.'
Link here

Could the statistical finding that, for example, black people are more likely to commit violent street crime be because of their DNA?

Oh, sweet Jesus.....

Good point, maybe Jesus had 'Christian' DNA.

ahaha

Is it just me, or does Pharaoh remind me of our old friend Chagroth?

You complete dumbass.

DNA traights take hundreds of years to develop. It does not happen overnight.

Where did I say it did happen overnight?

Did you read the article?

'Napoleon Chagnon for many decades studied the Yanomamo, a warlike people who live in the forests of Brazil and Venezuela. He found that men who had killed in battle had three times as many children as those who had not. Since personality is heritable, this would be a mechanism for Yanomamo nature to evolve and become fiercer than usual.'

Likewise Sub-Saharan Africa has a long history of tribal warfare and that could cause a DNA with more of a tendency towards using violence.

And it's traits not 'traights', knucklehead.

"Excuse me for thinking" is what he means.

Whereas Europe has no history of warfare whatsoever. If only them darkies weren't just naturally violent, we wouldn't have to kill em. :(

Take up the White Mans burden!

Europe would in fact be mightier if it had a greater history of warfare, and due to its great warfare heritage has a great ability to... kick a man's ass.

BTW...

I predict this thread to further devolve into "You are such an idiot/bigot/fascist/bonehead/moron."

No one wants to argue against reason if the conclusions do not favor their personal preference.

It isn't "reason" if this idea hasn't already been refuted by countless studies. Violence is a learned behavior, it isn't born into you. The reason children of violent people become violent is because it is what they are exposed to. The same can be said about black people. Because a majority of blacks in the U.S. live in low-cost, poorer, violent neighborhoods, they are exposed to it, and therefor more likely to resort to it.

The color of one's skin does not determine if one is violent or not. It is how the person is brought up, and the values instilled during that time. If one is brought up to care for all human life, no matter what, and they are constantly exposed to it, then that is, most likely, how they will be.

I will admit that there are cases where someone is a psychopath, and their behavior is unavoidable and mostly born into them. However, there isn't much significant proof that being a psychopath is hereditary. At least, not to my knowledge, which is admittedly very limited in the psychological field.

I think it's really weird to see a Chinese person with a British accent


I just kind of assumed they all inherited broken engrish and eggroll-making skills.

They live in poorer neighborhoods because, on average, black people have lower IQs than whites or Asians, and that means lower paying jobs or none at all.

Obviously no liberal would agree with that, because it could possibly lead to discrimination against blacks, but new research into the human genome is going to be a lot more difficult to disprove. You can't avoid the truth forever, the uncomfortable facts will have to faced sooner or later.

You're just a racist who is grabbing anything that can be manipulated to back up your tawdry little prejudices. If you actually believe what you just posted then I just feel sorry for you.

Why not post on a BNP forum? You might make some equally deluded friends....actually, I bet you already do.

Yeah, and thank GOD we have a really fail-proof measurement tool like IQ tests. i mean, look at the wealthiest and most successful people in the world. They ALL have the highest IQs, right? Everybody I know with high IQs are very successful and functional members of society. Every last one of them! :rolleyes


What facts have you presented here? You cited one dinky little article. Do you think this brilliant conclusion hasn't been reached by quant-racists before?

I think Ziggy pretty much shot down your blacks are genetically violent crap.

There's only one dispute I'd find with this: It may indeed not be hereditary, but it had to START somewhere. If violence isn't born-in and truly IS an acquired trait, one has to wonder naturally where it started, but this isn't a good argument to start as there is no discernible answer, i.e. "Who created God?"

Okay,

1.) The Chagnon stuff you referenced isn't in the article you linked to.

2.) You didn't mention that Chagnon's work is widely regarded as discreditted within the anthropology community. That doesn't mean he's neccesarily wrong, but its worth mentioning, especially where you bring him up out of the blue as if the two articles were interconnected.

3.) "Since personality is heritable" is part of a quote from Chagnon, delivered as if it is a scientiffic fact. It is not. It is a highly debatable contention, and I am aware of no significant body of research making any such claim.

You should read more deeply. next thing you know you'll be attributing a quote to Churchill that he didn't say and claiming to be 'proud' of him on account of it.

"They live in poorer neighborhoods because, on average, black people have lower IQs than whites or Asians, and that means lower paying jobs or none at all. "

It has been many, many years since IQ was concidered a reliable measure of intelligence. I'm also unaware of any peer reviewed studies making a causal link between average racial IQ's and demographics. Even studies that claim a link do not claim causality, since it would be nearly impossible to craft an experiemnt which would reveal if Low IQ cuased one to live in a poor neighborhood or living in a poor neighborhood caused a low IQ.

Like many Louts, you have a limmited understanding of how research works and what it takes for research to be concidered verified or even verifiable. You dislike and fear other races and are desperate to find scientfiic justification for your gut reaction so you can revel in it instead of feeling ashamed. This is almost certainly something you 'learned' from your parents, as the idea you might have 'inherited' it shows a childish understanding of what hereity and genes are.

When you respond by pointing out the spelling errors in this post, it will be an example of an attention to irrelivance that is in no way genetic.

Interestingly enough, statistically speaking, serial killers have high IQs.

First of all, I'm not proud of Churchill just because of a quote, and whether he said it or not I don't care at all.

Secondly you should get a new pair of specs, because at the bottom of the first page of the article is a NEXT PAGE button, and if you click on it you'll find the Chagnon bit. And there's no mention of him being discredited at all. If he was I'm sure the leftie New York Times would have said so.

Try again.

I'll do it for him.

Need a link, dumbshit?

http://www.survival-international.org/news.php?id=156

"If violence isn't born-in and truly IS an acquired trait, one has to wonder naturally where it started"

A) When we used to hunt and kill animals for food/protection and whatever else

B) Not necessarily, but close enough: culture.

Genes could actually play a potential role in anger, however, it's unlikely it would effect an entire ethnicity because the entire ethnicity does not necessarily have the same genes.

If it was so clear that he's discredited then why do you think The New York Times hasn't mentioned it? Any controversial work in this field is challenged, and I can find just as many links to people who support him as you can to people who don't.

Here's one to a defence of his work against the Patrick Tierney claims: Here, dumbshit

'It is the "political incorrectness" of Chagnon's position that seems to bother moralists the most; by raising the possibility that violence is part of human nature rather than a pathology, Chagnon undermines the moral activists' efforts to promote a less violent world. Sponsel (1998:114) also admits that much of the criticism of Chagnon results from biophobia, which he defines as "an almost automatic reaction against any biological explanation of human behavior, the possibility of biological reductionism, and the associated political implications." Clearly it is the "political implications" that most annoy those with a moralizing agenda.'

Way to go, getting your information off of a website that barely works. And I see why that defense appeals to you. It attackes the evil "politically correct" people with no baisis in fact whatsoever. It is all merely opinion, whereas the people who debunked Chagnon actually use fucking studies. Congratulations, you moronic bigot. You have officially been revoked of your humanity.

Porky; You rushed to attributre the quote to Churchill because you thought I didn't know who said it. It made you feel superior, which is sad, because I do know who said it, and it wasn't Churchill. It's just an example of the way your tiny porcine brain works. You think you now more than other people about subject, but it turns out all you know is the 'common knowledge', something which is generally wrong.

Of course you don't care. If you did care, it would be harder to be so full of yourself.

The New York Times is often fallible, especially lately. One need only look at the Judith Miller stories on WMD to see how easily their staff is misled. For instance in your article (Thanks for pointing out the button I missed) , the author makes his bizarre statement on personlity being hereditable without attributing it to Chagnon. Since that statement is highly contoversial and is in no way proven, that's an error any editor should have caught at any paper, liberal, conservative or small town. Likewise, citing Chagnon without mentioning that he is very poorly thought of academically and ethically (He's believed to have given the Yanamamo the 'gift' of measles) .

What's a moralist? is it the same thing as a Liberal? Can't you post some vague derogatory definition when you bring in a new term? Chagnon doesn't bother me because I'm politically correct (again, do you just mean liberal here? You could save yourself some time) I'm bothered by his lck of adherence to widely accepted reseacrh methodology.

When you say Moral activist, do you just mean liberal? It seems to me your haunted by a ot of boogeymen. I'd suggest it's just one boogeyman. You might sleep easier knowing that. Who is 'Sponsel" and what is he admitting? Is he a Chgnon suporter or detractor? If he's supporter, why the misleading use of the word 'admits'. If he's detractor, what are his objections? Do you actually have any idea who 'Sponsel' is?

It's very easy and very legitimate to point out structural differences in tatsebuds and pigmentation. It's irresponsible to look at personality and behavior, something we understand far, far, far less about then the comparatively simple actions of the nervous system and pigmentation. It's very bad science and it deliberately relies on it's readers ignornace of the terms under discussion. I don't even get to if I think it's all racist clap trap or not, because I'm not even looking at his conclusions yet. His initial premiss is flawed. Badly. He's mixing biology (a hard science) and Anthropology (a soft science)

It's typical for a lout such as yourself to assume my objections are based on being a Liberal Moralist Moral Activist because you don't know shit from shinola, you are a blowhard, and you have an inflated notion of your own intelligence.

Here's a thought: Maybe, just maybe there are people who have opinions different than yours and it's not because they are namby pamby tree hugging hippies. I'm sure it's comforting living in a world of straw men and imagining the whole world is against you and your few but proud common sense embracing real men. Why it would me more comforting then realizing you are in the majority and you firmly hold the reigns of power England and the USA is beyond me, but go ahead and keep worrying about Moralist Boogedys changing your nursery rhymes. Honestly.

If you need to believe that your lilly white self is superior to all the many varieties of froggy little brown men your country once owned, just do it, but for God's sake, stop your put upon squealing. The wold's trough is squarely under your massive snout. Chow down and shut up.