Category Archives: Genetics

The Intrinsic Flaws in Nature vs Nurture: Part 2 of 2

(Please read part one before continuing on to this article.)

Two independent variables lacking a proper relationship will perpetuate confounding factors that are used in place of the controls.  The false dichotomy of nature vs nurture creates confusion to overplay nurture for some and underplay it for others.  When their relationship is zero sum, the outcomes can only be egalitarian in nature – applied the same to all.

What is hidden by this false dichotomy is that environment’s meditating function between genetic potential and phenotype is exponential, not linear.

    When the relationship between nature and nurture is linear, it follows suit that environment affects all to the same degree.  In reality, the greater the genetic potential a person has then the more environment can help or harm them – high genetic potential has a much wider spectrum of possible phenotype than a low genetic potential.

    Many of those with the highest quality of genetic inheritance will understand how environment has helped or harmed them.  When placed in a horrible environment, the high functioning are far more likely to project their own abilities and struggles onto those with low genetic potential – who are nothing like them and are even a part of sustaining the harmful environment.  In fact, the current paradigm of nature v nurture almost guarantees projection because it gives a narrative that reinforces this innate tendency.  Thus, in a declining society the dwindling high-functioning will support wasting resources in an egalitarian fashion on those it will not help, instead of restoring the natural order that protects loss of potential.

    Projection and guilt of the high functioning – who can see how much environment has influenced their own potential – perpetuates the false nature v nurture debate as normative, especially those that have had their potential brought down from the highest peaks.  It is the catch 22 that the only capable of figuring this out are the ones projecting the most to reinforce it.  This is yet another case of circular reasoning woven into the false reality created by nature v nurture.

    The perfect example of the downward spiral created by accepting an egalitarian (linear) importance of environment is the failure of Blacks in America.  No matter how many Whites project themselves onto Blacks and do for Black communities what they would need to help themselves – they cannot make Blacks, as a whole (see unemployment, incarceration, and fatherless household rates compared to the amount of scholarships and aid out there for them), civilized or a functional part of society.  There is no amount of aid or affirmative action that will change this because Blacks will waste instead of utilize it, yet this waste of resources is only increasing.

It is understandable how those not made for a civilization would feel overwhelmed by it and oppressed; Sub-Saharan Africans have shown throughout history that they can neither create nor sustain a civilization.  Instead of accepting this as their nature, liberals go on pretending they can change the genetic potential of Blacks – as if environment is an independent variable not restricted to genetic potential – which has time and again show to be futile.  This has escalated to the point that the monster they created is turning on them, yet they still refuse to see it for what it is because of their projection.

    Bernie Sanders is continually interrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters.  They are emotional and unreasonable, which seems to be confusing for so many in the coverage of this fiasco (around the three minute mark is just hilarious). The leftist emotional tier system has no method to their madness and that is because it is based off of the same premise of nature v nurture.  Their latest attempt at giving some logical form to this victim hierarchy is to use the word “power” – as if this magical thing is granted to some over others, yet no one seems to ask where power comes from.

    The truth is that many of the “oppressed” are just dysfunctional and meant for a more primitive environment.  Blacks can’t even see the strategy in not biting the only hand in the world that feeds them, yet it is the shock of leftists that truly shows how ingrained their projection is into their ideology.  Bringing the third world into a first world environment won’t turn savages into high functioning beings, it will only turn a high trust civilization into a third world hell hold.

The reality that is hidden by Nature v Nurture needs to be understood to stop the downward spiral of the world.  Keeping the primitive in line is not enough, since projection will harm the high functioning over time and lead to guilt for the plight of those with genes that no one can change.  It is important to keep the lowest functioning separate from those with more potential, as to not bring down their betters.  By apportioning resources to prevent substandard environments from destroying those with the best genetic potential, they are able to uphold all – this is the beauty of restoring natural order.  It is hard to accept the most functional reality when being idealistic feels better, but it will only make reality worse to deny it’s optimal ordering – The world needs it’s natural leadership, and to stop the unnatural expansion of the least capable.

 Setting the normative mindset to view the world in terms of nature v nurture has a snowballing effect and is driving civilization downhill. Genetic potential is the independent variable, environment the mediator variable, and phenotype the dependent variable for the Individual Epigenetic Spectrum.  The mediating function of environment in this is exponential, with the vastness of the possible phenotypic range directly proportionate to the greatness of genetic potential.  Nature v Nurture needs to be recognized as fallacious; every study and mindset derived from it is fruit from a poisonous tree.

___________________________________________________________________________

Some closing ideas for the reader to consider:

How would this change in seeing reality affect food aid, both in-state and internationally?  If the quality of genes is important in population percentages, then expanding the mosts reckless people exponentially with food aid would be a ridiculous solution to poverty. Resources would be better apportioned if the right framing was given then there wouldn’t be so much guilt for those that can’t improve. Duty to future generations would return over guilt to the lowest functioning that are growing en masse.  How would this new framing effect affirmative action, both de facto or de jure?  Schooling systems catering to the least common denominator would be recognized as a horrible idea.  This small shift in how reality is understood could reverse the current shaming of excellence and success.  Hierarchy becomes preferable to egalitarianism, as it is more functional and just.  Unequal rights proportionate to the amount of responsibility the person can handle would be properly gauged and valued above idealistic human rights.  There are numerous ways this could apply, this just outlines the jist of it.

The Intrinsic Flaws in Nature vs Nurture: Part 1 of 2

“We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” -Werner Heisenberg

The Nature versus Nurture debate is paradigmatically flawed.  When conducting statistical analysis, determining the correct variables and their relationship to each other is crucial.  If the variables’ relationship is incorrectly determined, and this subjective framing is accepted as absolute fact in normative thinking, it creates a warped perception of reality that doesn’t allow for correction.  This is the case with the entire premise of Nature versus Nurture, it is foundationally flawed by viewing both parts as having a perfectly causal interaction and thus is purposefully misleading.  Both nature and nurture are considered independent variables which puts them in a state of conflict, only allowing for a zero sum relationship.  This sets them on equal standing to the other when looking for controls, which further creates confounding variables.

Before this can be explored further, a different misleading oversimplification needs to be addressed.  The macro and micro level of how genes and environment affect each other should not be lumped together, as they are in the current paradigm.  External conditions that, over time, select for specific traits on a large scale do not equate to the same thing as the micro level of how environment affects individual gene expression, which actually falls in the realm of epigenetics.  The two have enough interplay that they should be kept separate in order to avoid misinterpretation of the ways they contrast from how they compare.  For the sake of discernment, this article will call the environmental honing of certain genes over long periods of time the Generational Selection/Adaptation, while the environment affecting the expression of genes at a specific time will be called the Individual Epigenetic Spectrum.

The reason these concepts need to be kept separate is clearly seen by discerning when genes or environment are the independent variable or the mediator variable.  In Generational Selection/Adaptation the independent variable is the environmental pressures, the mediator variable is the potential (starting) genes in that population, and the dependent variable is the resulting phenotype of that population.  In the Individual Epigenetic Spectrum the independent variable is the person’s genes, the mediator variable is the environment, and the dependent variable is the phenotype.  Placing both nature and nurture as independent variables confuses these two scenarios, while creating confounding variables that are seen as controls to the flawed system.

(The rest of the article will focus solely on the Individual Epigenetic Spectrum.)

A common misconception is that being able to raise IQ means that environment on it’s own can create IQ potential.  This is a perfect example of how a person’s potential genetic spectrum of phenotype and their current phenotype itself have been confounded.  To say a person can raise their phenotype’s IQ doesn’t mean that their current phenotype is their genetic potential, nor does it prove that being able to change it for the better means that environment created this outside the possibility of their genes.  This simply means that they will affect the independent variable (their genes) with a different mediator variable (environment) to yield a change in the dependent variable (phenotype’s IQ); the genetic potential of an individual is still set to the same limits.  It can be affected by the environment in how it expresses, but that potential just isn’t fully expressed via the mediator.  A change in the dependent variable by a mediator variable in no way disproves the importance of the independent variables role in this process.  The genes predict where the ceiling effect will cap the person off, however people’s phenotype isn’t at the full potential of their genetic possibilities.

The phenotype being confused for the genes itself also creates another misconception in siblings having such different personalities being proof that environment creates this change alone.  Phenotype is the real life genetic expression, but not the genetic potential, as was discussed above.  Parents pass on their unexpressed genes – not just the expressed ones in their phenotype – to their children.  Children randomly get half of their parents chromosomal genes (expressed or not) in varying recombinations from each other that are then expressed, or not, in each child.  To claim that environment creates differences in close relatives’ phenotypes makes the assumption that their genes are all in the same combinations or expressed the same ways to be considered as a control.  Once this bastardization of genetic potential is understood, then it can be seen as a confounding variable, which leaves many of the Nature vs Nurture studies without a real control.  False controls against nature to prove nurture allow for a Circular Cause and Consequence fallacy.

This fallacious downward spiral also doesn’t take into account that choices or lifestyle are not purely nurture.  The reason that nurture must be a mediator variable is because the nature of a person helps determine their environment – their choices, values, preferences, and actions are expressed differently through conditioning only to the extent that their genes allow.  Any externally determined aspects of their environment also must interplay with their genetic potential to be expressed in phenotype, so even externally uncontrollable factors are subject to the genes in how they affect the individual.  The combination of many people’s phenotypes, within a given group, at a set point in time, determines many factors of their environment.  This variation on part of the environment but not on part of the constant individual given genes in regards to affecting phenotype shows why the former is the mediator and the later is the independent variable – it also is key for insight into what type of mediating function environment actually is (stay tuned…. hint: this is heavy foreshadowing lol).

What is the current paradigm hiding?

((To be continued….))