Philosophy & Economics: Political Philosophy

Is there evidence people's beliefs are based on genetics?

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • Michael Andbowinkle

    Something that is the consequence of “genetics, or culture, or one’s society” is not the product of thought, reason or choice.

    Yes it is. One gives way to the other.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • Michael Andbowinkle

    Yes, of course. Its not ALL society, genetics does play a roll.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • Michael Andbowinkle

    Ones beliefs are subjective. But there is common link in all of those subjective beliefs.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • Kevin Victor

    “But I’m not obliged to provide an alternative explanation when I am certain the two alternatives I’m being offered are both lies. I don’t have to explain how life got here to know the explanations I’m being given are both bunk.”

     

    If you are certain that current explanations are nonsense, why don’t you need to explain them?

     

    “Could the evolutionists and cosmologist be correct? I know they cannot possibly be correct in the details as they are currently presented, but the generalities could be correct. I know nothing specific can be said about how the universe works, or what human nature is, based on either cosmology or evolution in their current state, which is why statements like, “We have biological traits that have carried over in our long history of evolution,” are foundationless.”

     

    Seems like a more of general statement than something specific. It doesn’t tell me anything about the details or mechanics of how evolution works. Only that it presumes some evolution occured and that some genetic traits were present. The fact that these sorts of inquries of knowledge can’t be explained through specific, scientifical means like in physics or chemistry, we have to rely on generalizations, for the sake of understanding. Even saying “they can’t possibily be correct” is a generalization.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • Samantha Atkins

    That species evolve from one another is well established fact.  Saying it isn’t so would be nearly as perverse as claiming the world is flat at this point.  So this is a rather bad example.   The refusal to decide is not being a careful intellect unless none of the ideas are as in congruence with what is known to date as is possible within epistemological limits today.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • Michael Andbowinkle

    Dude… YOU are a product of your own society! All of your knowledge came from someone else teaching you those things, and LEARNING those things. If you grew up in the 1930’s, you would not be thinking those things! So… you are absent of reason.

    It is not only incompatible with liberty, it is incompatible with the nature of human beings as rational volitional creatures.

    It is PERFECTLY compatible with Liberty! As for nature I just explained to you human nature, you are attached to an “idea.”

    Also, you are being disingenuous, and severely hypocritical in speaking of human beings as being “rational volitional creatures.” Why?

    Because being rational, is spotting differences. Spotting the negatives and positives in others AND identifying groups, culture, and race.

     

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • Lee Roesner

    What I find abundant in so many (all?) introspective conversations, is the concept of “beliefs”, and how easily we all toss it around while we argue one belief over another, as if the world is just what you believe it to be. And then we try to justify those beliefs with rational thought. But then is rational thought not just other beliefs that we believed before that we use to justify the current belief? So are we not all just stroking ourselves with our feelings?

    Or is rational thought something else. Is it not an attempt to reason what is true? But then, what makes something true? What’s true, is not true because one believe it’s true in one’s head. What’s true is demonstrated out here, in the physical world by cause and effect. The more rational one is, the more in touch they are with reality out here. Reality is not in one’s head, only the perception of it. What makes an individual more able to reason more accurately, is simply because he has a more accurate perception of reality, no?

    Cause and effect, is a demonstration of what is true, and is the foundation of logic and reason. That is to say the more “conscious” one is of reality and the real, physical world, the more “aware” they are of what is true.

    I would suggest what makes one more of a statist vs an individualist then is the degree of consciousness (perception of reality that determines one’s beliefs —  that has the potential to grow beyond beliefs to true knowledge and wisdom, or of what’s true), where the statist is more driven by the logic of feelings and beliefs, and the other more accurately reasoned by what is true.

    It’s consciousness and awareness that separates us from the animals, that act in herds, and that use force against one another, or in group against group, that kill each other. Primitive is it not? Sound familiar?

    Yes, all too familiar…and we seem to be moving back to the primitive, by an intentional loss of consciousness done within our state run educational system, and back to feelings and beliefs, to the point where our kids don’t even know what sex they are, forced even to use the same bathrooms, that give reason for force and coercion of another, in the name of “fairness” and “tolerance”.

    So I would say yes, there are fundamental primitive, social, tribal, survival type genetic instructions that are still in the animal in all of us, that act by primal feelings, and it is in battle with the potential for higher consciousness, that leads to civility, that separates us from the animals, that manifest civilizations. A higher intellectual state of condition where we can reason and conceive of moral rights, with respect for each other, and others property and freedom of individual conscious, and self-determination. These aren’t just “nice” things to believe in, it’s a state of condition also happens to produce the greatest physical abundance. This is not by happenstance, and has nothing to do with feelings and belief. It has to do with what’s true, and acting on what’s true.

    There are physical consequences on both directions. Sorry for the long post…

     

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • Andrew Lepkowski

    Influenced by genetics, yes… based on, no.

    Different environments (temperate vs. tundra; large tribe/group vs. small tribe/group; high conflict region vs. low conflict region; etc.) necessitate different survival strategies, reproductive strategies, and adaptations. Individuals with the wrong strategies and adaptations for their environment would be unlikely to survive and/or unlikely to pass on their genes (natural selection). One’s predisposed/”genetically influenced” survival and reproductive strategies (whether realized/known or not) would likely have an influence on their political preferences. Wars, genocide, transfer payments, economic collapse, resource mis-allocations, and many other things the state meddles with strongly impact human survival.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    Adam Hoisington

    I doubt anyone is thinking that exactly, Conza. I think the implication here is more of a “genetic pre-disposition”. Some folks are pre-disposed to getting fat and unhealthy if they eat poorly (like me) while others are not. The ones who are not, may be more inclined to eat garbage. If one day they finally realize that they don’t want to eat garbage anymore, this doesn’t mean their genes changed, it just means they have consciously overrided the behavior that is reinforced by their genes.

    Of course, if we want to get technical, through epigenetics, yes, Rothbard’s genes may have changed during his conversion. Though I rather doubt it. 😉

    Also, Doug Casey has joked a lot about thinking libertarians are genetic mutations and that some – perhaps most – are simply not capable of being one.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    starrychloe

    No I don’t believe his genes changed one day, only that it was ‘inevitable’ that he would revert to that position. I also did and believed silly things, but eventually became ‘enlightened‘.

     

    And yes, I do believe IQ has a small factor in the wealth of nations. If you have a country with lead & heavy metals in the groundwater, it is bound to perform worse than another country. Just as one company can have better talent than another company and be more successful, another country can have better talent also, but on a larger scale. I shouldn’t name countries right now less a tangent develop.

    Nevertheless, even very smart people with very high IQ will use all the logic and rationality in the world to justify a government. I don’t think it has to do with IQ. I think there is a pre-disposition and people defend it after-the-fact, with the sophistication of their argument relative to their IQ.

    Adam: Yes I would believe it may be an anomaly, based on evolutionary psychology.

     

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    Adam Hoisington

    = I’d be interested in the proof of this. It’s certainly not anything a priori. The opposite can equally and as easily be claimed as true: ‘The ones who are not, may be less inclined to eat garbage.’

    There is no proof. I’m throwing out ideas and speculation. That’s why I used the phrase, “may be”.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    Reply