[b]Robert M. Sapolsky
In other words, the more genomically complex the organism, the larger the percentage of the genome devoted to gene regulation by the environment.[/b]
That can’t be good, right Satyr?
The candidate gene approaches show that the effect of a single gene on a behavior is typically tiny. In other words, having the “warrior gene” variant of MAO probably has less effect on your behavior than does believing that you have it.
That can’t be true, right Satyr?
There’s also subliminal cuing about beauty. From an early age, in both sexes and across cultures, attractive people are judged to be smarter, kinder, and more honest. We’re more likely to vote for attractive people or hire them, less likely to convict them of crimes, and, if they are convicted, more likely to dole out shorter sentences.
Perhaps we can now call it common sense. With all that this will imply.
What happens when children observe domestic violence, warfare, a gang murder, a school massacre? For weeks afterward there is impaired concentration and impulse control. Witnessing gun violence doubles a child’s likelihood of serious violence within the succeeding two years. And adulthood brings the usual increased risks of depression, anxiety, and aggression. Consistent with that, violent criminals are more likely than nonviolent ones to have witnessed violence as kids.
Perhaps we can now call it common sense. With all that this will imply.
…call the game the “Wall Street Game,” and people become less cooperative. Calling it the “Community Game” does the opposite.”
In other words, less autonomously?
Thus, for our purposes, genes aren’t about inevitability. Instead they’re about context-dependent tendencies, propensities, potentials, and vulnerabilities. All embedded in the fabric of the other factors, biological and otherwise, that fill these pages.
Damn, it would have to be really, really complicated.