Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Jordan Peterson interview on C4
Options
Comments
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59087
It's a lot less in play in our culture than it once was to be fair.AbusesToilets wrote: »I despise the credence given to "Race" in our cultural nowadays. Such a wildly inaccurate and divisive way of viewing the world.
Seems to alright. Though the definition of species can be wooly enough too B. So dogs and jackals can mate and have fertile young but are different species(though IIRC fertility drops in successive generations). Dogs and wolves are the same species, but subspecies, so no issues there. In the distant past Humans have had kids with other sub/species of humans. A couple of them in fact. Even though these other humans were around 300,000 years divergent genetic difference going on.Do you actually think breeds are the same as species?
Modern humans today are all the same species. Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The differences between peoples are too small to bring in the subspecies tag. If Neandertals or Denisovans were still around they'd we'd be sub species of each other(I'd personally still consider them human). Below that definition there are more distinct populations within the whole(with quite a bit of overlap on the edges). "Race" is a dubious set of definitions, but there are broadly speaking a few different populations of humans around today and it would be fairly demonstrable. EG a pathologist could look at a skull and be able to tell you if the person was likely European, Asian or African.
The differences are subtle of course, but present as averages of such populations. Compared to the really obvious difference between us and extinct subspecies of us.
The extinct lad on the right looks very different.
One might argue that there has been some largely unwitting selection going on in certain populations. The obvious would be the transatlantic slave trade. The on the spot selection process in Africa for young strong individuals followed by the unbelievable horrors of the transport of those people, a truly awful number of whom died en route, would tend to favour the strong over a fairly short period of time. Never mind the lives of backbreaking toil of those who were "lucky" enough to survive the trip. A few differences have been observed in those populations today when compared to their African cousins. Much higher rates of cardiovascular disease and diabetes would be two.No-one has been breeding different groups of people to develop different traits, so trying to compare populations of humans to dogs is... grossly misinformed at best.
Other examples might be cultural groups who tend to remain isolated and marry internally even within larger populations. Folks like the Amish in the US who show higher levels of genetic disease than their non Amish neigbours. Some Jewish populations would be another. The Ashkenazi being one such. They can trace their lineage to about 300 odd people in the late medieval. So quite a small founder group(funny enough mostly of European lines, rather than Middle Eastern. The maternal lines are all European). And they show higher levels of certain genetic conditions than the background populations. Even in Ireland Travelers show a slightly different gene signature to the settled population. It's fascinating stuff.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
It's a lot less in play in our culture than it once was to be fair.
Seems to alright. Though the definition of species can be wooly enough too B. So dogs and jackals can mate and have fertile young but are different species(though IIRC fertility drops in successive generations). Dogs and wolves are the same species, but subspecies, so no issues there. In the distant past Humans have had kids with other sub/species of humans. A couple of them in fact. Even though these other humans were around 300,000 years divergent genetic difference going on.
Modern humans today are all the same species. Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The differences between peoples are too small to bring in the subspecies tag. If Neandertals or Denisovans were still around they'd we'd be sub species of each other(I'd personally still consider them human). Below that definition there are more distinct populations within the whole(with quite a bit of overlap on the edges). "Race" is a dubious set of definitions, but there are broadly speaking a few different populations of humans around today and it would be fairly demonstrable. EG a pathologist could look at a skull and be able to tell you if the person was likely European, Asian or African.
The differences are subtle of course, but present as averages of such populations. Compared to the really obvious difference between us and extinct subspecies of us.
The extinct lad on the right looks very different.
One might argue that there has been some largely unwitting selection going on in certain populations. The obvious would be the transatlantic slave trade. The on the spot selection process in Africa for young strong individuals followed by the unbelievable horrors of the transport of those people, a truly awful number of whom died en route, would tend to favour the strong over a fairly short period of time. Never mind the lives of backbreaking toil of those who were "lucky" enough to survive the trip. A few differences have been observed in those populations today when compared to their African cousins. Much higher rates of cardiovascular disease and diabetes would be two.
Other examples might be cultural groups who tend to remain isolated and marry internally even within larger populations. Folks like the Amish in the US who show higher levels of genetic disease than their non Amish neigbours. Some Jewish populations would be another. The Ashkenazi being one such. They can trace their lineage to about 300 odd people in the late medieval. So quite a small founder group(funny enough mostly of European lines, rather than Middle Eastern. The maternal lines are all European). And they show higher levels of certain genetic conditions than the background populations. Even in Ireland Travelers show a slightly different gene signature to the settled population. It's fascinating stuff.
Cardiovascular disease and diabetes are first world diseases. Bet they have observed more obesity too.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
You almost certainly were "socially conditioned" to like it to some degree P. You have grown up in a culture that would be steeped in the lore of the motorbike. If you had grown up in a New Guinea hill tribe your approach to a motorbike would be completely different. Or if you'd grown up 200 years ago. Then it might have been the horse over the cart. Add into the mix a set of "talents"/genes which made you more into speed, more into risk taking and a motorbike would have been a better fit than a car. I too grew up in the same or similar culture and have the speed and risk taking gene, but my coward/self preservation gene is strongerprofessore wrote: »The question is why you like what you like. Maybe if you slavishly follow trends then you think it's all social conditioning. But mostly people like what they like because it's in them. They do something and it feels right. Like my motorcycle. I got on a scooter in my 20s and it instantly felt right. I wasn't socially conditioned to like it. I didn't know anyone who had one before that.
so got into cars. Well I always felt cars were better because they didn't fall over when stopped. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
You almost certainly were "socially conditioned" to like it to some degree P. You have grown up in a culture that would be steeped in the lore of the motorbike. If you had grown up in a New Guinea hill tribe your approach to a motorbike would be completely different. Or if you'd grown up 200 years ago. Then it might have been the horse over the cart. Add into the mix a set of "talents"/genes which made you more into speed, more into risk taking and a motorbike would have been a better fit than a car. I too grew up in the same or similar culture and have the speed and risk taking gene, but my coward/self preservation gene is stronger so got into cars. Well I always felt cars were better because they didn't fall over when stopped.
but you would say liking the speed part (at a group level) is more nature and is gender based?A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
It's a lot less in play in our culture than it once was to be fair.
Seems to alright. Though the definition of species can be wooly enough too B. So dogs and jackals can mate and have fertile young but are different species(though IIRC fertility drops in successive generations). Dogs and wolves are the same species, but subspecies, so no issues there. In the distant past Humans have had kids with other sub/species of humans. A couple of them in fact. Even though these other humans were around 300,000 years divergent genetic difference going on.
Modern humans today are all the same species. Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The differences between peoples are too small to bring in the subspecies tag. If Neandertals or Denisovans were still around they'd we'd be sub species of each other(I'd personally still consider them human). Below that definition there are more distinct populations within the whole(with quite a bit of overlap on the edges). "Race" is a dubious set of definitions, but there are broadly speaking a few different populations of humans around today and it would be fairly demonstrable. EG a pathologist could look at a skull and be able to tell you if the person was likely European, Asian or African.
The differences are subtle of course, but present as averages of such populations. Compared to the really obvious difference between us and extinct subspecies of us.
The extinct lad on the right looks very different.
One might argue that there has been some largely unwitting selection going on in certain populations. The obvious would be the transatlantic slave trade. The on the spot selection process in Africa for young strong individuals followed by the unbelievable horrors of the transport of those people, a truly awful number of whom died en route, would tend to favour the strong over a fairly short period of time. Never mind the lives of backbreaking toil of those who were "lucky" enough to survive the trip. A few differences have been observed in those populations today when compared to their African cousins. Much higher rates of cardiovascular disease and diabetes would be two.
Other examples might be cultural groups who tend to remain isolated and marry internally even within larger populations. Folks like the Amish in the US who show higher levels of genetic disease than their non Amish neigbours. Some Jewish populations would be another. The Ashkenazi being one such. They can trace their lineage to about 300 odd people in the late medieval. So quite a small founder group(funny enough mostly of European lines, rather than Middle Eastern. The maternal lines are all European). And they show higher levels of certain genetic conditions than the background populations. Even in Ireland Travelers show a slightly different gene signature to the settled population. It's fascinating stuff.
Really interesting post Wibbs but there's a few things that the zoologist in me couldn't help but clarify!
Natural selection works like this:
If there are genes, randomly inherited of course, which end up being useful for survival in a novel environment, then those genes might be retained into subsequent generations - but this takes millenia (at least!).
There is also a very cool phenomenon known as epigenetics, where environmental conditions (e.g. stress, starvation etc.) can actually cause your gene-pairings to become mismatched (through a number of different mechanisms) and therefore alter portions of your genome; and this is a heritable trait - offspring can inherit the "changed" genome and it subsequently becomes their "template" genome. It's a relatively novel field of research but it's particularly interesting from the point of view of the evolution of behaviour in animals.
I do find it incredibly hard to believe however that the extremely short period of time since the slave trade would provide a reasonable amount of time for such genes to become prolific and widespread in a population - even if, hypothetically, the selection pressures were strong enough (which I don't see any evidence for).
I've heard the same argument put forward for rates of alcoholism in Irish people - that the extreme trauma endured by a significant portion of the population over the past number of centuries led people to self-medicate and then altered the physiology of addiction mechanisms in our ancestors, which was encoded in their genome via epigenetic phenomena and then transferred to subsequent generations where it proliferated.
Not impossible - but extremely unlikely.
Culture is key here, as it is in most other populations.
You do what you see other people do - especially other people who look like you, and who you live near. This all goes into building a person's disposition, personality, interests, emotional stability etc. (almost completely unconsciously) as they develop through life. The postmodernist claim that nothing is biologically deterministic and that we're all born as blank slates is baloney, but the amount of behavioural flexibility humans show is so astounding that it really almost does approach a coarse approximation of that "blank slate" claim.
Race is not a dubious term among biologists either. All sorts of organisms have geopgraphic races or 'ecotypes' - where populations in e.g. cold climates develop adaptations to help them survive better there, and populations in e.g. hot climates end up with divergent phenotypic traits much to the same function. Current human populations are absolutely an example of that. People at the equator have lots of melanin to protect their skin and DNA against damage from intense levels of UV radiation. Those of us much closer to the frozen north have scant melanin and lower rates of vitamin D, as we all know. Differences in facial features etc. may be down to sexual selection (people tend to mate with people of their same racial group - reinforcing traits like this), or things like kin recognition.
It's all fascinating stuff to me - the sheer phenotypic and cultural diversity of humans across a single global range. Amazing!
But we're increasingly not even allowed to talk about science in these terms anymore without being labelling as a racist.
I feel this is actually Peterson's main gripe with "postmodernism" although he doesn't often communicate it in clear terms.
And FYI Neanderthals weren't a subspecies of Homo sapiens. They were a different species of human: Homo neanderthalensis.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
No it doesn't. That's an odd view of natural selection. It can happen far more rapidly than that. The obvious and well trodden example is the peppered moth that hangs out on tree trunks. Pre industrial forms were overwhelmingly pale in colour with the black mutation a rarity, but around industrial towns in Europe with at the time heavy pollution from coal and industry causing tree bark to darken within a few years the black version became the majority because predation took out far more of the now obvious pale ones. Bacteria can evolve at an even greater speed of course. Days in some cases.
Natural selection works like this:
If there are genes, randomly inherited of course, which end up being useful for survival in a novel environment, then those genes might be retained into subsequent generations - but this takes millenia (at least!).
But let's look at higher animals like us which I suspect you're referencing. About 10% of those with European ancestry are resistant to HIV(particularly clustered in Northern Europe where the percentages would be higher). The gene involved was rare in genomes before AD1000, about 1 - 30,000. It went from that to 1 - 10 over the course of about three centuries. Why? The current premise is that among the various "plagues" of Europe(they tended to be lumped together in reports of the time) in this time frame there were successive viral plagues that strongly selected for this gene. Well mainly by killing those who didn't have it. The bacterial plague(Black Death) has left genetic markers on modern Europeans by the same action. Some of which appear to be involved in the immune system.There is also a very cool phenomenon known as epigenetics.
Lamarckism by any other name.
Selection pressures were strong enough. 1) Those individuals that were enslaved at source were selected for the most value they could bring in an economic sense. 2) the transport of these people to the New World selected further. The mortality rate on the ships alone was 15% and often higher. It was higher again before they set foot on a ship and then more died after they reached their destinations. Many researchers have concluded that 40% mortality rate from start to finish is not such an exaggeration. 3) That's before we look at how these people were treated after they survived all of that. 4) After the supply of new slaves in the Americas started to dry up in the early 19th century "breeding programmes" of a sort were in play to shore up the difference with trade of fertile men and women a going concern. A hideous stain on history. In any event that's a lot of selection pressures over a relatively short period of time. It would hardly be a surprise that this would be reflected in the genetic heritage of their descendants.I do find it incredibly hard to believe however that the extremely short period of time since the slave trade would provide a reasonable amount of time for such genes to become prolific and widespread in a population - even if, hypothetically, the selection pressures were strong enough (which I don't see any evidence for).
I'd agree, though I would probably mark how close it approached that approximation a bit further away.The postmodernist claim that nothing is biologically deterministic and that we're all born as blank slates is baloney, but the amount of behavioural flexibility humans show is so astounding that it really almost does approach a coarse approximation of that "blank slate" claim.
One interesting aspect to this is more recent research has shown that light skin appears to have come much later to those populations than we first thought. Populations that had been living in that environment for at least 30,000 years. I personally had always been a little dubious about the simple light skin = more Vit D hypothesis. One population in particular always stood out for me; the Native Tasmanians. They lived in the same sort of environment only on the opposite side of the planet, lived in the area for about the same length of time as Europeans and yet were a very dark people.Current human populations are absolutely an example of that. People at the equator have lots of melanin to protect their skin and DNA against damage from intense levels of UV radiation. Those of us much closer to the frozen north have scant melanin and lower rates of vitamin D, as we all know.
Blonde hair seems to have been one such selection. Only showed up aorund 12,000 years ago and spread rapidly.Differences in facial features etc. may be down to sexual selection (people tend to mate with people of their same racial group - reinforcing traits like this), or things like kin recognition.
Even within a quite small range. European populations are extremely diverse in phenotype. Widest range of hair colours and textures,, widest range of eye colour too, even skin tone varies widely. You can sometimes even see this in the same family. One theory goes that because the European population was quite small and less diverse people selected for individuals who looked more different and those differences became more amplified.It's all fascinating stuff to me - the sheer phenotypic and cultural diversity of humans across a single global range. Amazing!
+1But we're increasingly not even allowed to talk about science in these terms anymore without being labelling as a racist.
I feel this is actually Peterson's main gripe with "postmodernism" although he doesn't often communicate it in clear terms.
The jury is most certainly out on that point. Before the Human and Neandertal genomes were mapped that held much more weight, because as a group they are about the biggest outliers in phenotype of all archaic humans(except for us). However since then we've learned that all non African populations carry between 1-4% of Neandertal DNA within them(In some East Asian populations they have an even higher percentage (11%) of what appears to be another archaic human(likely Denisovan)). Older modern Human genomes can have even higher percentages. IIRC Otzi the Iceman is running close to 6-7% because he was closer to the event and a 30,000 year old lad found in Russia had a Neandertal paternal grandfather. So we clearly interbred and had viable young, viable enough and often enough that 30+ 1000 years later many of us - well all non Africans - still carry their DNA around. That reads far more like a sub species label than a species.And FYI Neanderthals weren't a subspecies of Homo sapiens. They were a different species of human: Homo neanderthalensis.
Though to be fair the whole species label is a hard one to define.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
silverharp wrote: »but you would say liking the speed part (at a group level) is more nature and is gender based?
I would. I know a few women who are speed freaks - my kind of women but they are the exception. Most of them are scared of any sort of speed.
I am actually quite conservative as a motorcyclist, don't speed at all.0 -
-
-
No it doesn't. That's an odd view of natural selection. It can happen far more rapidly than that. The obvious and well trodden example is the peppered moth that hangs out on tree trunks. Pre industrial forms were overwhelmingly pale in colour with the black mutation a rarity, but around industrial towns in Europe with at the time heavy pollution from coal and industry causing tree bark to darken within a few years the black version became the majority because predation took out far more of the now obvious pale ones. Bacteria can evolve at an even greater speed of course. Days in some cases.
But let's look at higher animals like us which I suspect you're referencing. About 10% of those with European ancestry are resistant to HIV(particularly clustered in Northern Europe where the percentages would be higher). The gene involved was rare in genomes before AD1000, about 1 - 30,000. It went from that to 1 - 10 over the course of about three centuries. Why? The current premise is that among the various "plagues" of Europe(they tended to be lumped together in reports of the time) in this time frame there were successive viral plagues that strongly selected for this gene. Well mainly by killing those who didn't have it. The bacterial plague(Black Death) has left genetic markers on modern Europeans by the same action. Some of which appear to be involved in the immune system.
Lamarckism by any other name.
Selection pressures were strong enough. 1) Those individuals that were enslaved at source were selected for the most value they could bring in an economic sense. 2) the transport of these people to the New World selected further. The mortality rate on the ships alone was 15% and often higher. It was higher again before they set foot on a ship and then more died after they reached their destinations. Many researchers have concluded that 40% mortality rate from start to finish is not such an exaggeration. 3) That's before we look at how these people were treated after they survived all of that. 4) After the supply of new slaves in the Americas started to dry up in the early 19th century "breeding programmes" of a sort were in play to shore up the difference with trade of fertile men and women a going concern. A hideous stain on history. In any event that's a lot of selection pressures over a relatively short period of time. It would hardly be a surprise that this would be reflected in the genetic heritage of their descendants.
I'd agree, though I would probably mark how close it approached that approximation a bit further away.
One interesting aspect to this is more recent research has shown that light skin appears to have come much later to those populations than we first thought. Populations that had been living in that environment for at least 30,000 years. I personally had always been a little dubious about the simple light skin = more Vit D hypothesis. One population in particular always stood out for me; the Native Tasmanians. They lived in the same sort of environment only on the opposite side of the planet, lived in the area for about the same length of time as Europeans and yet were a very dark people.
Blonde hair seems to have been one such selection. Only showed up aorund 12,000 years ago and spread rapidly.
Even within a quite small range. European populations are extremely diverse in phenotype. Widest range of hair colours and textures,, widest range of eye colour too, even skin tone varies widely. You can sometimes even see this in the same family. One theory goes that because the European population was quite small and less diverse people selected for individuals who looked more different and those differences became more amplified.
+1
The jury is most certainly out on that point. Before the Human and Neandertal genomes were mapped that held much more weight, because as a group they are about the biggest outliers in phenotype of all archaic humans(except for us). However since then we've learned that all non African populations carry between 1-4% of Neandertal DNA within them(In some East Asian populations they have an even higher percentage (11%) of what appears to be another archaic human(likely Denisovan)). Older modern Human genomes can have even higher percentages. IIRC Otzi the Iceman is running close to 6-7% because he was closer to the event and a 30,000 year old lad found in Russia had a Neandertal paternal grandfather. So we clearly interbred and had viable young, viable enough and often enough that 30+ 1000 years later many of us - well all non Africans - still carry their DNA around. That reads far more like a sub species label than a species.
Though to be fair the whole species label is a hard one to define.
I certainly wouldn't say that the species concept is hard to define. At least, I've always been taught to work off the biological species concept. I wouldn't say the jury is out on neanderthals being a subspecies. More likely is that they were absolutely a separate species, but reproductive barriers hadn't fully formed because we diverged from a common ancestor so recently.
I'm fairly confident in my cartoonish and brief description of natural selection. Don't see how it's odd? Re: peppered moths - that's not an example of rapid evolution, it's an example of selection for better / worse camouflage colour morphs. You're dead right to say the selective pressure is intensified with industrial pollution, but the genes for both colour morphs still persist in populations. It just so happens (only in theory btw, if you read the original paper - there's also been lots of criticism of it since) that visual predators such as birds will pick off the conspicuous forms most often. Sure eventually it could lead to species divergence over millions of years of intense selection but for now it's accurate to call it only an example of phenotypic plasticity.
Interesting point about native Tasmanians - haven't come across that before so cheers! Would they be closely related to Aboriginal people? If so it would explain dark skin.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement