Yes, Miles is right. I've even written a paper about
this elementary truth. (It hasn't been published yet.)
The confusion will not die. I had an extraordinarily
intelligent person, a biz PhD with some biological
knowledge, tell me today that she thought that
character or personality was almost entirely
"genetic," although with training and disciple one
might overcome genetic proclivities. Moreover, the pop
sociobiological literature, some of which is written
Harvard professors of biology, is full of this error,
even though the proponents will sometimes retreat
temporarily if pushed. The fact is, most people think
that "biological" or "genetic" means "fixed
independently of the environment." Another very smart
woman, former philosophy prof, NYU law student, author
of an excellent book, recently commented on a draft of
the above-mentioned paper, sating disapprovingly that
she thought it was a bad idea to concede that genetics
might make contribution to explaining human behavior,
because it concedes what the right wing says about
human nature.
--- Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 lweiger at umich.edu wrote:
>
> > Of course "both environment and genes must
> interact to produce any specific
> > traits." It's not like you could clone me by
> extracting some of my DNA and
> > placing it in a vacuum. NO ONE OVER THE AGE OF
> FIVE HAS EVER HAD SUCH A
> > HORRIBLY CONFUSED UNDERSTANDING OF HOW GENES WORK
> (at least in recent times).
> > Please be more charitable.
>
> >From my own experience teaching and reading
> people's opinions online,
> I'd say naive genetic determinism is alive and well.
> I wish your
> statement above in caps were true, but it's not.
>
> Miles
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail