RoR: Forum

Robert:

Are ye suggesting that a scoundrel is inborn?

That's again the fallacy of the false dichotomy, namely that being a scoundrel is either 100% determined by the genes or not at all. There are probably genetic constitutions that make it more likely that someone will become a scoundrel, but more likely is not the same as inevitably.

Post 121

Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 1:44pm

There are probably genetic constitutions that make it more likely that someone will become a scoundrel,

Such as?

Post 122

Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 3:34pm

See for example here or here.

Post 123

Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 4:11pm

The first study [haven't been able at this time to get to the other] only acrues to viewing the matter from a tribalist standpoint and that these genetic traits are but individualistic incurrences, which of course would therefore be 'anti-social' - a very loaded package-dealing term..... in no way, then as such is this something to claim a genetic influence on criminality as a rational person would consider the term...

Post 124

Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 9:12pm

Cal,

I agree that all outcomes are a product of background genes and environmental influences (the interaction). My breed of dog in this fight (as I stated when I first entered it) is that environment is the primary factor influencing outcome.

I postulate that variability in environments explains maybe 60-70% of the variability in outcomes -- leaving 30-40% of the variability in outcomes explained by the variability of genes.

You're not sticking to my argument.

Ed

Post 125

Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 9:29pm

Cal, here is my point -- demonstrated by research ...

=====================
Depression, criminality and psychopathology associated with alcoholism: evidence from a twin study. Acta Genet Med Gemellol (Roma). 1984;33(2):333-9.

A study of 74 twin pairs with alcoholic probands from the Maudsley Hospital is reported. Pairwise concordance for alcoholism as categorised by the SADS-L Research Diagnostic Criteria is similar in MZ twins (29%, 8/22) and DZ twins (33%, 13/39).

Data on criminality revealed that 21% (32/148) of the twin sample had non-alcohol, non-traffic offences on record at the UK Home Office.

Of the 32 with criminal records, 28 were alcoholic probands and pairwise concordance for criminality was found in only 1 MZ and 2 DZ pairs.
=====================

Recap:
Genetic variability explains between 3 and 33% of the variability in outcomes (with regard to crime and substance abuse) -- leaving the majority explained by environmental factors.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 7/02, 9:29pm)

Post 126

Monday, July 3, 2006 - 11:07pm

Ed, you wrote, addressing me (in post 115):

> I have demonstrated (not presumed) that some aspects of
> character are environmentally established. What do you
> have to say about that?

What do I have to say about what? About your assertion? I don't even know what sort of an answer you might expect. Are you thinking that the assertion somehow contradicts something I said?

I haven't read the posts which precede where I entered re Rand's views on the Mozart issue. Reading your further responses to Cal, I see that you describe yourself (post 124) as "postulat[ing] that variability in environments explains maybe 60-70% of the variability in outcomes -- leaving 30-40% of the variability in outcomes explained by the variability of genes." Ok. Variability specifically in what outcomes? (I'm not sure what the details are of the behaviors in the study.) You also describe yourself as "agree[ing] that all outcomes are a product of background genes and environmental influences (the interaction)." Thus, if you're talking about "outcomes" which pertain to a character trait such as "criminality," you're evidently disagreeing with Rand. Fine. I have no problems with your disagreeing with Rand. I'd say that one study isn't enough to provide a basis for strong conclusions. And I have no idea without examining the experimental protocols how well constructed I'd consider the particular study you cite. My personal belief is that there are different environment/genetic percentages with different traits, some being more genetically influenced than others.

Ellen

___
(Edited by Ellen Stuttle
on 7/03, 11:19pm)

Post 127

Monday, July 3, 2006 - 11:12pm

RCR: Yes, the passage you quote (post 116) from *My Years with Ayn Rand* is the passage I was thinking of. He also tells that, with some further detail, in the earlier book.

Thanks for looking it up.

ES

__

Post 128

Monday, July 3, 2006 - 11:57pm

Ellen,

You say I've marshalled a single study, but for the record, the "study-count" is now up to 4 (4 studies, all saying that environment is the predominant factor in 'outcome').

=========
Are you thinking that the assertion somehow contradicts something I said?
=========

I was responding to your harsh critique of Bill (wherein you state that he marshalled insufficient evidence for his assertion). I merely marshalled sufficient evidence for my assertions -- and asked if that was enough for you, in order to test your capacity for rationality (ie. to see if you were "worth debating").

=========
Thus, if you're talking about "outcomes" which pertain to a character trait such as "criminality," you're evidently disagreeing with Rand.
=========

Not so fast, Ellen. If we were playing tug-of-war, and I were in charge of 60-70% of the "tug" -- then who do you think would win, huh? It is a case in point that, whosoever (or whatsoever) commands the majority of the variability -- commands the outcome.

Ed
[predominance is, in effect, everything]

(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 7/03, 11:59pm)

Post 129

Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 6:31am

Ed Wrote :

"leaving 30-40% of the variability in outcomes explained by the variability of genes."

Anything greater than zero means tabula rasa is false unless you fallaciously define away the particular "outcome" as not inherited.

So here's where we stand now...

1.) Arguments is favour of tabula rasa have been shown to be fallacious. Done.

2.) More importantly, what does this mean for the downstream reasoning of Objectivism?

Ultimately #2 is more important because unless problems like this can be addressed by the more learned Objectivists, how can someone who sees these flaws take the philosophy seriously when discussion is met only with denial or worse?

If the errors are ignored or denied, the whole concepts of "reality" and "reason" as central tenets of Objectivism are immediately called into question. This is the heart of my problems with the philosophy.

Bob

Post 130

Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 10:07am

Bob,

=================
Ed Wrote :

"leaving 30-40% of the variability in outcomes explained by the variability of genes."

Anything greater than zero means tabula rasa is false unless you fallaciously define away the particular "outcome" as not inherited.
=================

Bob, let's get more concrete than this. When making such abstract statements so boldly (and without including the requisite, syllogistic reasoning explicitly) it's too easy to get off track -- and to throw babies out with dirty bath water. Here's a concrete example ...

Different folks are born (and grow up) with different testosterone levels (and different sensitivities to testosterone). Testosterone affects one's mood and one's assertiveness.

Folks higher in testosterone (or higher in sensitivity to it), will tend to act differently in certain situations (eg. when cut-off by another on the freeway, when challenged to a fight, when seduced by a harlot, etc). But -- and this is a big 'but' -- but this HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH tabula rasa.

So, in a way, we can 'inherit' tendencies for specific responses in specific situations -- but this has nothing to due with innate ideas.

With this in mind, the rest of your post is water under the bridge, as you have not shown -- using explicit, syllogistic reasoning -- what you have staked claim to show. You've merely asserted it.

Here is one example of a syllogism -- to help you get started on the kind of work that would be needed in order for you to justify making the bold assertions that have done here ...

Life requires a respiration of gases.
Outer space has a deficient concentration of these gases.
=======================
Therefore, one should not try to breathe in outer space (if one wants to live).

Using this syllogistic reasoning, I 'know' -- I don't merely 'believe' -- that trying to breath in outer space is foolish.

Ed

Post 131

Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 11:36am

Ed:

So, in a way, we can 'inherit' tendencies for specific responses in specific situations -- but this has nothing to due with innate ideas.

"tendencies for specific responses in specific situations" is just a general definition of "character". Those "innate ideas" are a straw man that is resurrected time and again. No one really claims that ideas are innate. But Rand presupposes that all our traits are formed only by ideas by volitionally chosing certain values, so her 'tabula rasa' does imply that there are no inborn traits like intelligence, musicality, introversion, extraversion, criminal tendencies etc. etc. And this is no misunderstanding, she really meant it as has been shown repeatedly in this discussion: 'No one is born with any kind of "talent"' she says, Mozart had no special musical talent, neither had Rand a talent for writing, it was all just a matter of choosing your values and to work at some skill, and everyone could do the same.

Post 132

Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 12:03pm

Cal,

=================
But Rand presupposes that all our traits are formed only by ideas by volitionally chosing certain values, so her 'tabula rasa' does imply that there are no inborn traits like intelligence, musicality, introversion, extraversion, criminal tendencies etc. etc.

=================

Well, maybe Rand wasn't privy to the kind of in-depth understanding of psycho-active biomolecules as I am. But, as I stated to Ellen, this is not a 'concession' to the 'genetic determinism' of someone's character. As I said to Ellen, environment still predominates in character formation -- and predomination is, operationally, executive.

We're born with some tendencies AND the potentiality for character development, we aren't born WITHOUT this potentiality for character development (which is where your argument leads -- ie. straight to genetic determinism).

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 7/04, 12:04pm)

Post 133

Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 1:40pm

Ed, you wrote (post 132):

"Well, maybe Rand wasn't privy to the kind of in-depth understanding of psycho-active biomolecules as I am. But, as I stated to Ellen, this is not a 'concession' to the 'genetic determinism' of someone's character. As I said to Ellen, environment still predominates in character formation -- and predomination is, operationally, executive."

Is *that* what you think you "stated to Ellen"? Thanks for explaining, since I would never have figured out your meaning from what you wrote. You were arguing against "genetic determinism"? But who here is arguing FOR "genetic determinism"? No one that I've noticed. The argument, as Cal once more explained in post 131, is against Rand's documented meaning of "tabula rasa." And it's now been shown several times from your own quotes that you yourself aren't agreeing with her views on that.

You further wrote to Cal:

"We're born with some tendencies AND the potentiality for character development, we aren't born WITHOUT this potentiality for character development (which is where your argument leads -- ie. straight to genetic determinism)."

No, it doesn't. To say that we're born with some tendencies does not say that we're born without a potentiality for character development. Consider the Mozart issue again. To say that Mozart was ahead of the game of what most people would be capable of achieving isn't therefore to argue that he necessarily would develop his talent, that he didn't have to do any work, that he didn't have to have any training. The second doesn't follow from the first.

Ellen

___

Post 134

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 12:22am

A quick remark about Rand on the subject of "talent":

I suspect she developed an inconsistency, one she didn't recognize, between her earlier and later -- by which I mean post-Atlas -- views on the subject. I always understood her to mean in speaking of "the men of ability" in Atlas persons of "talent," though "talent" which might not be realized in their life course. For instance, consider the descriptions of Francisco as a child, also his father's feeling that he was raising the most illustrious scion of a gifted lineage. Also for instance, Eddie Willers: it's always seemed to me that Rand's view of him was that he lacked an inherent gift of "ability" which the central heroic figures possessed. There are other details as well both in that novel and elsewhere. For instance, her description of Nathaniel in "To Whom It May Concern" as having possessed a potential for greatness which he betrayed. Also a remark Roark makes about Wynand, that he "wasn't born to be a second-hander." Etc. And even earlier, details in We the Living about Leo's being an "aristocrat," as if she thought there was a sort of "aristocratic" cast of mind.

My belief, to summarize, is that her views about "talent" changed, though without her being aware of the change.

Ellen

___

Post 135

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 5:44am

Ellen, you nitpicker, here's some of your own medicine ...

==================
"predomination is, operationally, executive."

Is *that* what you think you "stated to Ellen"? Thanks for explaining, since I would never have figured out your meaning from what you wrote.
==================

... and what was I that I wrote? ...

==================
Not so fast, Ellen. If we were playing tug-of-war, and I were in charge of 60-70% of the "tug" -- then who do you think would win, huh? It is a case in point that, whosoever (or whatsoever) commands the majority of the variability -- commands the outcome.

Ed
[predominance is, in effect, everything]
==================

hmmm ... let's put these 2 together and check for any concordance ...

==================
predominance is, in effect, everything
==================
predomination is, operationally, executive
==================

Wow. And to think, *you* never would have figured it out.

As to your other criticisms, you missed the mark. You see, I was arguing about the truth of the matter, and you were merely nit-picking (again). I was showing how Rand was -- operationally -- correct in coming down on the correct side of the nature/nurture debate.

I see now that you were only interested in finding some kind of (any kind of) error in the writings of Rand. Not caring so much about the truth of the matter, but rather about tarnishing Rand, it was inevitable that we would end up talking past each other so. We have different goals here.

Ed

Post 136

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 6:56am

Ed Wrote:

"Not caring so much about the truth of the matter, but rather about tarnishing Rand, it was inevitable that we would end up talking past each other so."

Who doesn't care about truth? Seriously now...

"I was showing how Rand was -- operationally -- correct in coming down on the correct side of the nature/nurture debate. "

Now you're introducing a whole new argument and asserting that as long as you believe that nature/nuture falls more on the nuture side then the "essense" of what Rand apparently meant (not wrote though) is just fine and dandy. Rand however, was pretty clearly on the ZERO side of the nature debate.

"but rather about tarnishing Rand"

Errors are errors, it's doesn't have to be personal and emotional.

"We have different goals here."

My goal is to understand the implications of the error(s).

Bob

Post 137

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 7:10am

Ed:

Not so fast, Ellen. If we were playing tug-of-war, and I were in charge of 60-70% of the "tug" -- then who do you think would win, huh? It is a case in point that, whosoever (or whatsoever) commands the majority of the variability -- commands the outcome

This whole "tug-of-war" metaphor is of course completely silly in this regard, this isn't some kind of contest with a single "winner". Further these figures are statistical data concerning the variation over many different individuals, so if you want to speak in such simplistic terms of "winners" at all, you could as well say that in 30% of the people the genetic disposition is the "winner" and in 70% the environment. Your argument is analogous to saying that while the percentages of the traits 'male' and 'female' in the population are 50% each, every person has to be 50% male and 50% female.

I see now that you were only interested in finding some kind of (any kind of) error in the writings of Rand. Not caring so much about the truth of the matter, but rather about tarnishing Rand, it was inevitable that we would end up talking past each other so. We have different goals here.

Of course if you can't refute the arguments you can always try to discredit your opponent by questioning his or her motives. Ellen not caring so much about the truth of the matter? And if the truth is that Rand made a serious error? That seems to me not irrelevant to this forum. Or is that impossible in your world view? Or undiscussable? You have no proof at all that Ellen's motive is to "tarnish" Rand. If you have to resort to questioning her motives, it is a surefire sign that you've lost the argument.

Post 138

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 1:49pm

Ed wrote of ES:

"I see now that you were only interested in finding some kind of (any kind of) error in the writings of Rand. Not caring so much about the truth of the matter, but rather about tarnishing Rand, it was inevitable that we would end up talking past each other so. We have different goals here."

Gak. Ed, with all due respect your sight is failing you miserably, and you are way, WAY off the mark here. While I wouldn't disagree that there are many seemingly intelligent people out there whose primary motivation appears to be little more than to "tarnish" someone or another, I can assure you that Ellen Stuttle is not one of them; she is in fact one of the most consistent, dedicated, detailed, and creative "truth seekers" I have ever encountered.

RCR

Post 139

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 3:05pm