The Twists of History and DNA

An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times has a piece today talking about the possible connection between genetic evolution and history." From the article: "Trying to explain cultural traits is, of course, a sensitive issue. The descriptions of national character common in the works of 19th-century historians were based on little more than prejudice. Together with unfounded notions of racial superiority they lent support to disastrous policies. But like phrenology, a wrong idea that held a basic truth (the brain's functions are indeed localized), the concept of national character could turn out to be not entirely baseless, at least when applied to societies shaped by specific evolutionary pressures."

Comments

Germans

[Reality Master 101]

As someone with a pretty large ladle of German heritage, I have to say that I have the gene that desires meticulous organization. This possibly can also be seen by German's love of clocks. Of course, the extreme expression of that are the almost ridiculous levels of Nazi record keeping. I've often wondered if this is a cultural trait, or if it's something genetic in the brain. Given that I have pretty close to zero German cultural influence, I tend to by sympathetic toward a genetic possibility.

More generally, I think people are going to have to face someday that brain genetics are not somehow special. Just like certain races are shorter, taller, darker, lighter, faster, stronger, etc, certain races (and sexes...) are going to have bell curves that are different shapes. Of course, this doesn't preclude any individual from falling anywhere on the bell curve.

Re:Germans

[tenchiken]

My german history professor traced a lot of this back to the various wars that occured while Germany was fragmented and was a plaything of France. It became obvious to the german people that they needed to organize and become stronger.

As a historian, trying to clasify people according to genetics or prejudices is useless. While the "Great Man" theory is a simplification, the ability of a person to change a life, a civilization and world history irregardless of how/where they were brought up and their enviornment is written all over history.

Re:Germans

[idlake]

If someone were intending to show a genetic component to personality, he or she would first have to show a physiological component to personality. That has yet to happen.

Personality has an extensive physiological component, as demonstrated by numerous drugs that alter personality, as well as numerous well-documented and consistent changes to personality from brain trauma and injury. Something as simple as testosterone alters personality.

To date, there heve been exactly zero scientific studies that point to a genetic component of personality, including the famous twins studies of the late 1990s.

There are so many demonstrations of genetic components of different aspects of personality that this isn't even worth anything debating anymore.

It's kind of ironic that, just as the right wing has their creationists, the left wing has a group of people like you that, for purely ideological reasons, deny elementary facts about individual differences.

The real argument against eugenics and racism is not to deny, against scientific evidence, that there are genetic differences between individuals and groups of people, it is to respect, accept, and support people regardless of what genes they happened to have inherited.

Bullshit! All men are the same!

[Pig Hogger]

But like phrenology, a wrong idea that held a basic truth (the brain's functions are indeed localized), the concept of national character could turn out to be not entirely baseless, at least when applied to societies shaped by specific evolutionary pressures.

What bullshit! All men are the same!!! National characters are shaped by History, and very often, History is dictated by Geography.

An example: the british live on a poor island, which was soon depleted of it's natural ressources. In order to avoid starving, they simply went overseas to get the essential ressources they lacked at home. Hence they developped a commercial empire, and the ability to do trading on a global scale was elevated to a "desirable national characteristic", which explains that the anglo-saxons are the most imperialistic people on Earth.

Nearby France is a rich country, overflowing with bountiful ressources. It followed Britain by constituting an empire, yes, but this was just for copycat purposes; it never vitally needed an empire just to survive, and the best illustration of this is, after World War II, when both Britain and France lost their empires, Britain sunk into decadence and decrepitude, whilst France had the highest economic growth during the 30 years following the War.

And this is also why in France, excelling in the Arts and Science is viewed as a "desirable national characteristic", whilst commerce is viewed as a vile, unwholesome, fithy activity.

As usual, humanity fancies itself above the fray..

[MoralHazard]

There has been some recent trending toward the thinking that recent human history (the past few millenia, that is) involves our genetic history. Most of it is cited in the article, though--it's a pretty scant number studies willing to even look in that direction. As the article notes, Western societies tend to be pretty sensitive to suggestions that genes predispose behavior or personality traits, because it has so recently been the justification for war, mass murder, and horrific social policies (eugenics).

BUT... the problem, from a scientific perspective, is that the more we learn about genetics the more evidence exists that there ARE behavioral and personality traits linked to our genes. Nobody's talking about master races or anything like that, but there's still a morally offensive (to some, at least) supposition there: Not all men are created equal.

This is a big moral problem for liberal Western democracies. Most European and North American states, and a good portion of nations in the rest of the world, are founded on the basis that every person is entitled to the same basic rights as the rest. The philosophical rhetoric that underlies these claims needs the postulate that all human beings are somewhat equal--nobody is so much better equipped, morally or intellectually or otherwise, that he can take away the political rights of self determination from other men.

Although I'm behind scientific inquiry 100%, and I don't think that these researchers should ever compromise their work for political purposes (well-intentioned or not!), I am a little worried about how this kind of work will affect the new few centuries of government and political thought.

The Blank Slate

[Bytal]

A great book on this subject is Stephen Pinker's The Blank Slate : The Modern Denial of Human Nature. He spends a good while explaining the biological evidence for certain traits such as increased intelligence being just as much genetically determined as someone's eye color. He also takes the time to explain why so many people instinctively demonize this stance and why facing the truth about our genetic heritage will actually allow people to live in greater harmony with each other. The explanations are surprisingly clear and he mostly stays away from rhetorical and psychological bubble that so many philosophers often resort to.

Re:The Blank Slate

[garyboodhoo]

Pinker's book is not without interesting points, however I consider his qualification of "intelligence" highly questionable and in my opinion, simplistic. Eye color and other physical features are simply observed. Intelligence on the other hand is notoriously slippery. The behaviors (internal & external) we label as intelligence have everything to do with the context in which they occur.

As an example, I'd ask is someone with amazing drawing skills but lacking mathematical aptitude less intelligent than a mathematician who lacks the synaptic connections between hand & eye that lead to advanced drawing technique? Who is more intelligent - a computer scientist or a physicist? A theorectical physicist or an experimentalist?

As an over the top example I'd say that solving linear equations on board a sinking ship instead of jumping on a life raft is spectacularly unintelligent.

Re:Asians?

[cranos]

I'm guessing you were posting tongue in cheek, but just in case:

Um, Mongol hordes conquering three quarters of Eurasia? China was basically one long war for centuries, Japan liked to play "Guess who's Shogun this week" and Korea kept coping it from both sides. Not exactly a history that suggests a lack of testosterone in any measure.

Re:libertarianism is the same fallacy as communism

[linguae]

libertarianism is nothing but selfishness with a philosophical bumper sticker stuck on its ass that somehow purports to elevate it to respectability.

Libertarianism, in essence, is classical liberalism. Are you calling John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Hayek, and Milton Friedman supporters of selfishness? Selfishness is the last quality that I would equate with these people. Where and why do people equate libertarianism with selfishness; somebody please tell me before I go off.

the only people who take this shit seriously are earnest but naive college students with too much philosophy classes under their belt and no real life experience, 40-something selfish assholes behind on their alimony payments, and nutjobs who horde guns in the woods and consider themselves to be part of the minutement militia, 2 centuries hence

And what does that make you?

Libetarianism is about civil liberties and free-market economics. The socialism that you are pandering doesn't work in the long run and restricts the freedoms of its citizens. One very fallacious error that leftists make is that they claim that government should be "compassionate" and forcibly take money from the most successful in society and give it to the poor because all rich people are selfish (or some other theme). However, governments cannot be compassionate, because governments are entities of force. You should read this article which further explains my viewpoint.

You need to get some books and read them before you spew all of this ignorant crap about a political philosophy that you do not fully understand.

It isn't in a vacuum

[dbIII]

This reminds me of the not-incorrect observation by a certain Harvard dean that women, in general, tend to be better in areas not related to math and science

I live in Australia. For cultural reasons women were discouraged from being educated in science and mathematics when I went to school, but excelled in languages, history, art etc. The poor average results for women in these subjects worried a lot of people in education - so something was done about it and the culture in schools moved from discouraging girls in these subjects to encouraging them. As a result now people are now worried about the poor results in science and mathematics for boys, which is probably also cultural and related to bullying. If it was really about the brain and it was a major influence the Australian girls would not be doing much better than the boys.

or example, that asians tend to excell at math and science

Cultural - an expectation to have to know what you are doing to succeed and not just be buddies with someone whose dad can get him a top job (recently appointed US ambassator to Australia a case in point - was in the same club as GW Bush at Yale).

mentioning that they're generally shorter than their european counterparts would be considered insulting by some

Due to cultural differences I couldn't order a coffee the same way in the USA as in Australia without being called a racist - Australia is quite a racist country but the names for coffee have nothing to do with it. It must be the same thing with the height comment being considered an insult - or the way it is said. People hate to have generalisations put on them from those who identify themselves as outside of their group - especially if it is used in some sort of context implying superiority over them (eg. someone from the USA pointing out that Australia is a racist country would make people angry, while I can say that from within after watching an election campaign.)

An interesting idea.

[jd]

The main drawback is that although we do indeed know that genes have evolved in the past 10,000 years, it's not by very much. The bulk of modern societies are substantially younger. Britain was inhabited 15,000 years ago, but the current mixture of genes we call the English, for example, are a mere 940 years old. There would be precious little differentiation in a paltry thousand years. Certainly not enough to explain the peculiarities of the English.

(Well, having said that, I'm not sure that anything short of experiments by sadistic aliens from the planet XYZZY can explain the English, but that's another story...)

Likewise, many European nations are very young, in evolutionary terms, and spent most of the time invading each other, mixing the gene pools substantially. It's actually quite impressive that there is any "national trait" in appearance, all things considered. By all rights, that should have been totally eliminated through wars, raids, invasions and the occasional mass population migration.

I'm inclined to reverse the direction of the theory - that nations did not evolve people to fit the circumstance, but rather people evolved nations to fit their whims.

Under this theory, genetics is quite irrelevant. Rather, you start off with small bands of people espousing a specific philosophy or attitude, and that attracts like-minded people. The bands that become large enough become nations, the smaller bands become yokels to be scorned by the masses.

I do not believe that there is a "work-till-you-die" gene, for example. It's counter-productive. You end up doing less effective work, die younger and are unable to take full advantage of the skills and abilities of those who cannot physically work under such rigors. We can see that although American medicine is the best in the world, and American mental and physical healthcare is highly advanced, more people die in America from stress-related disorders (including stress-related addictions) than do so in any other technological civilization on the planet. From a purely evolutionary perspective, a more efficient, less militant work-ethic should be better adapted for survival.

Clearly, evolution isn't the determining factor in what civilization survives, or indeed becomes dominant. However, no civilization can become dominant without some advantage, and no civilization will maintain a philosophy that doesn't provide it with some payback.

America has a lot of resources, a lot of usable land, a lot of just about anything imaginable. Combine that with a rapid population growth, and you've the makings of a very respectable superpower. The payback then becomes obvious - with that much in hand, it is very easy to accrue both wealth and influence. Those factors alone are enough to describe American philosophies.

But American philosophies didn't evolve out of thin air. They came from the Puritans - known to the English as the Roundheads. The Puritans ruled England after seizing power in a military coup under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell, and beheading the King for no better reason than he liked to party too much. (The Royalists were known as the Cavaliers, from which we have inherited the term to be "cavalier".) After Cromwell himself was forced from power, the Puritans fled England for America, becoming the controlling force there.

The Puritans were a strange English sect and really didn't feature much in English history prior to the English Civil War. If genetics plays any role in culture or history, the Puritans evolved in exactly the wrong place and the wrong time. England, by that time, was becoming seriously sick with endless internal religious wars. Strangely, the Puritans managed to move to about the one country in the world that could handle them. This is simply not something genetics can do for you.

I am much more inclined to believe that there is nothing here that needs explaining genetically, that the genetic makeup o