Kelley wrote:
>
>
> Sapolsky has another section on biology, hormones, environment and
> depression. He talks about how only half of the people who are biologically
> predisposed to depression actually suffer from it. Another illustration of
> Justin's point.
>
I'm not sure that a "biological predisposition" to depression has ever been established. But Sapolsky's point would hold as well for bipolar, where such a "biological" predisposition had been established. Same with schizophrenia. And as yet, no one has a clue as to what is actually going on.
The existence of a "curiosity" gene in rats has been established. It has also been established that the gene doesn't turn on unless the mother rat licks the cub a good deal. Genes don't do anything until they get turned on, and apparently for a large number of rather important genes, they operate only within certain "environments." It is really baffling that more on this list can't see that Justin's point is practically a tautology, and arguing with it is (as he said) incoherent. This discussion is permeated with furious green ideas.
Carrol
> Kelley
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk