From: Brad - Eufrates (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue 19 Aug 2003 - 21:32:43 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson
> I am personally convinced that psychological traits such as
> have strong genetic components. For example, descendants of
> Mormons would
> be expected genetically to be more susceptible to cults than
> others whose
> ancestors were not sucked into the major cult of a century and a half
> ago. This seems to be born out in that an unexpectedly large
> number of
> (for example) scientologists have Mormon ancestry.
People who have been taught to believe one thing are pretty
susceptible to being taught another. Whether that is genetic
or not would be difficult to determine.
> Humans are (in my estimation) less than a generation away
> from gaining
> complete control of their genes. If I felt it was even two
> away, I would put more effort into encouraging bright people
> to have more
> kids. Being the sort who leads by example, I had 5 (all
> girls) by two
> really bright women.
Why don't I feel any better?
> "Regression to the mean" means that really bright parents
> will (on average)
> have kids that are less bright than they are, but still well
> above average,
> and a few of them will be sharper than their parents.
> A major problem is that one kid can outnumber two parents. :-) Kid
> raising is a tribal project, always was.
> Keith Henson
> Keith Henson
Cultural influences are far more important than genetic influences
on the amount of intelligence expressed.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue 19 Aug 2003 - 21:33:20 GMT