--- ozarkheretic <ozarkheretic@...> wrote:

> Szasz goes into a brief discussion about the ideas of Galton, and
> Szasz sets out to belittle Galton's ideas by comparing Galton's
> remarks about the heredity of "genius" to the ideas of "the modern
> psychiatrist" who "knows that "manic depression is hereditary".
> Therefore, Galton's ideas are no better than the ideas of "the
> modern psychiatrist". I would point out that "manic depression" may
> very well be hereditary. Just because "the modern psyschiatrist" may
> say that md is hereditary does not mean it is not hereditary, if
> that is what Szasz is implying. Of course, I would agree with Szasz
> that md is not an illness as defined by Virchow. However, if md is
> a personality trait maybe it is a trait or behavioral tendency that
> is inherited.
>
> For some reason Szasz seems to be very suspicious of "genetics".
> Galton's research on "genius" really led to the research
> on "intelligence". And actually Modern research has shown
> that "intelligence" is a characteristic or trait that is primarily
> produced by heredity or genetics. People do not become intelligent
> because of the environments they grow up in. They are intelligent
> because of DNA that is transmitted to them by their parents. But
> for reason that idea seems to bother Szasz, as one can see from his
> remarks about Galton. Szasz says, "Edison knew neither genetics nor
> psychology, but he knew what genius was firsthand. It was, he
> said, 'one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent
> perspiration'." Whose perspiration and inspiration was Edison
> talking about? Just any old Tom, Dick, or Harriet? Edison did not
> just hire anyone to work in his laboratories.

It is certainly true that our genes contain a lot of objective knowledge
that affects our interpretation of the world around us. For example,
information that enters our eyes in the form of light is processed partly
by the eye itself and partly by the brain. That this is true can been seen
by hte phenomenon of colour blindness, in which a genetic difference
between two people can make the difference between one of them being able
to distinguish red and green and the other being unable to do so.

However, phenomena registeed by the senses of a non-colour blind person as
red and green are in fact different. The exact difference depends on subtle
details of the context in which a particular object which a normal person
sees as red or green object is viewed. However, there is every reason to
think that whatever the circumstances there will be some difference between
a red object and a gree object and this difference might be measured by
some suitable light detector. Then if a colour blind person agrees that the
explanation behind how the light detector works he might agree that red and
green are in fact different. This situation is not particularly unusual:
there are many things that we cannot directly detect but which we
nevertheless think exist because ouyr best explanations of how the world
works entails that they exist - atoms, for example.

So a person can entirely reject a theory that is written into his genes if
he has an explanation that he considers more compelling. As such, there are
at least two things that can influence how a person thinks: his genes and
critical argument. We are constantly immersed in ideas on the radio on
television and in discussions with our peers right from the day we are
born. All of the behavioural genetics studies I have read look for
correlations between genes and behaviour, but these correlations have no
direct bearing on the issue of the genetic heritability of behaviour
because people are capable of learning by taking ideas from other people
and modifying them to suit their own ends. For example, if we had conducted
a study in the South in, say, the 1950s we might have found a correlation
between certain genes and the habit of lynching people or of being lynched.
Namely, we would have found a correlation between some families of white
people being racist morons and some families of black people bearing the
brunt of their gross stupidity. This correlation was not caused by genes
but by people creating traditions through discussion, indoctrination and
criticism. Behavioural genetics studies make no serious attempt to deal
with this problem and as such they are all junk science.

Who do people accept such junk? Some people have not given any serious
critical thought to the issue. Some people want to eliminate the role of
religion in moral philosophy and have, ironically, ended up replicating
many of the least attractive features of religion, largely because people
can read any moral they like into behvioural genetics studies, which, as
with all factual theories do not directly imply the rightness or wrongness
of any particular policy. For example, if a behavioural genetics study
finds a link between a certain gene and teenage promiscuity then should all
foetuses with that gene be aborted? Or should children with that gene be
given free condoms, or ... what? As such the morals drawn from the studies
tend to be those that suit the prejudices of those drawing the lesson. And
of course that in itself is a convenient feature for those who wish to go
on a moral crusade while posturing as objective scientists, which is why so
many psychiatrists are enamoured of these studies.

Alan



___________________________________________________________
Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now.
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry