View Single Post
lollersk8s's Avatar
Originally Posted by refault View Post
genes are just a form of (bio)coding, after all.
but i'm not sure about the ideological merits behind fully correlating genetic traits with inherent "inherited" traits (i.e., without variance and without critically analyzing the bio-coding of genes itself), although i sympathize with your view.

there's an interesting analysis of social development by marx et al. that basically says a child's/individual's traits/characteristics/personality/life are predetermined already in-advanced, prior to even being conceived by the mother. basically, history defines and makes up what a person is born into, what their social/economic/etc conditions will be in development and during life, etc. genes are definitively related to this, although genetic research is rarely understood outside of a vulgar utilitarian mindset, unfortunately.

i actually tend to think that there might be a link between skin color/pigmentation and psycho-social disposition, especially in regards to darker skinned peoples having more melanin (both neuronal and muscular/peripheral/etc. in the dermis), thus having a different dopaminergic neuronal makeup.

basically, since melanin is a close chemical cousin of dopamine, and dopamine is produced by melanin-rich regions in the brain (i.e., the substantia nigra), darker skinned/shitskinned peoples tend to have more dopaminergic receptors due to this correlation of dopamine vis-a-vis melanin, thus creating more of a "biological" disposition to be impulsive, to have sexual passions, to be overly/obnoxiously social, to have little to no self-control, to be violent (violence is often considered by some neuro-biologists/neuro-psychologists as being related closely to dopaminergic and norpinephrine dysfunction), to be more easily prone to mental illnesses such as schizophrenia (ironically enough, blacks tend to be some of the highest statistical demographic with schizophrenia, although you must keep in mind the name of Deleuze & Guattari's preeminent book "Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia"), etc.

most black children have a really ridiculous forms of hyperactive adhd, for example... adhd is often correlated with dopaminergic dysfunction, although variances exist between the hyperactive and the inattentive types.

there have been some studies linking impoverished urban areas in the united states (basically implying mostly shitskin children) with both low grades/test scores and dopaminergic dysfunction/dysregulation (due to shitskin or low test-scoring children having an over-abundance of dopamine receptor sites/over-expression of the dopamine receptor gene)

This is pretty interesting, i never thought Melanin had more of a role besides pigment. Perhaps this explains the difference between blondes and brunettes?

Still though, i think social development only goes so far - a blatant example would be an autistic child born into a wealthy family. The whole nature versus nurture is a very old debate, but now we have proofs that were not available before. Marx didn't have these studies, and neural biology was hardly the beast it is today.

For example Judith Butler wrote a book in the 70s that became canonical for queer and gender theory, where she maintains that sex and gender are both SOCIALLY constructed She then attributes gendered violence to socialization, and nothing else. Meaning that biological factors don't play a role, which is false - since then many studies have linked low serotonin and high testosterone as a powerful combo that is HIGHLY correlated to violence, domestic, gendered or otherwise. This is also compounded by alcoholism and things like that:

I used this and three other studies to demolish that part of her theory in class once - that's the point of academia and science in general. You use new data to adjust or slash existing understandings. Theorists like marx and Butler and everybody else can only work within their time period and the information available at that point. What i don't like is that they tend to think in absolutes - ie, it's ONLY socially constructed As with anything else the truth often lies somewhere in the middle - certainly genetics, physicality and such things have a hand in it.

Ps. same goes for claiming that gender is non-binary: just because .02 percent of people are born with a giant clit or a micropenis like ruho, doesn't mean that biologically we have more than two genders. It's like saying that because some people are born with one leg, we are not bipedal. It's a deformity, not proof of some other category. Although i do agree that gender identity is socially constructed for the most part, with some things stemming from the fact that men ARE larger and stronger than women, hence they fill more jobs like firefighter, coal heaver, steel worker, etc.
Originally Posted by she nice
i do drink but it's not as effective for immediate relief
Old 12-13-2014, 01:57 PM lollersk8s is offline  
Reply With Quote