So AGW denying is genetic then.
Left to your genetics you’d be flinging poo, running around naked, catching animals and eating them raw, and eating whatever didn’t make you sick. That’s your natural genetic behavior.
Anything beyond that is learned. A community that generally shares learned behaviors, beliefs, values, and languages is a culture.
What you’re talking about (why people behave as they do in the ghetto communities) is sociology and defined by ghetto socio-cultural values.
I’m sure you’ll have no problem finding me some cites that it was ACLU pressure and not Congress’ desire that changed that and many other program rules to deny benefits to women with children where the father of those children also lived with/provided for the families in question then?
I seem to remember the cry to change the eligibility requirements for “poverty programs” in general coming from a very different source (of course it is possible that I’m remembering it wrong, but I doubt it).
CMC fnord!
But would I be an ape who likes to hang out with other apes and fling poo, or would I enjoy flinging poo more on my own? 
Of course this is true, and it probably does have a lot more to do with it than genetics. But there may be contributing genetic factors, although it would be extremely hard to test for this, since the genetics of behavior and intelligence is not understood very well at all by contemporary science. But for a non-intelligence example, one’s natural susceptibility to heroin addiction, or whether one has an “addictive personality” in general may be the difference between someone who is trapped in poverty by addiction and someone who is able to try it once and not do it again.
And as for a serious response to the ape situation: wouldn’t genetic intelligence be a possible difference between an ape who eats one mushroom, gets terribly sick, almost dies, and then never eats that mushroom again and one who then goes out and eats ten of the same mushroom?
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
No one is immune to addiction, and many people with addictive personalities go on to be healthy well adjusted adults because they learn to manage to their tendencies, and not put themselves in a place to be addicted.
The difference between a successful person and a nonsucessful person is usually self management. A nonsuccessful person leaves things to fate and luck, but a successful person will take matters into their own hands. Learn to work around their own weaknesses and properly utilize their strengths.
I have a natural tendency to be disorganized and chaotic. However I’ve been making a real effort to be organized this term, and it’s really showing in my grades.
I also have a tendency to be shy and out spoken in person. Class 5 introvert doncha know. So I’ve been watching extroverts and modeling their behavior in my mind. Thinking about how they see things when they interact with people. As a result I’m learning to be very socially out going and relaxed.
So if disorganized introvert is my “genetic behavior” then it’s easily being overridden by my choices and learned behaviors.
Not all people share the same goals to learn the same behaviors. In the ghetto different things are valued so people will model them selves around what it takes to meet these goals.
It really depends on the second ape’s motivations. Maybe the mushroom was really trippy. Maybe it’s suicidal. Plus how would it know it was that particular mushroom? Chances are it’d need a bigger meal then one mushroom. So it prolly ate other things as well. Maybe it blames some green plant it ate too.
Plus what if it didn’t get sick from the mushroom? What if it got a flu? That’d be pretty stupid if stopped eating perfectly good mushrooms because it had the flu.
Well, one accepted definition of being stupid is not making valid connections between correlations and causations (or other failures of logic), especially despite repeated occurrences. This can certainly be influenced by culture (for example, “The gods struck me down because I didn’t pray enough and that was what caused the sickness, not the mushroom”), but it is also influenced by raw intelligence (a smart ape would recall other occasions of having eaten those other green plants and notice that it didn’t get sick when it ate them, or perhaps it would display caution when eating the mushrooms the second time). Additionally, science as a field deals to a very large degree with this kind if thought, and scientists tend to be smarter than the average person by most conventions measures of intelligence. The problem is that intelligence and knowledge are intertwined to a very large degree. For example, if there is a red button that gives an electric shock when pressed, no one can be blamed for pressing it the first time, although a smart person is more likely not to press it a second time. But if you tell the person that the button gives a painful shock, you prevent the entire situation.
Also, you mention other possible motivators, like the ape being suicidal. This is an excellent example of behaviors that do not bring success in the modern world, which generally does not define being dead as a positive condition. 
Another behavior that is more applicable to this thread is a desire to remain in connection to one’s family and friends, even when it means living in bad conditions. This may not entirely be a learned behavior.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
By the way, Rand Rover, you asked about “soft racism”. I think you know what this is. An “ethnic” family moves into a white neighborhood. The white people feel a bit uncomfortable; maybe they don’t invite the ethnic family to neighborhood barbecues, and maybe they interact with the ethnic people as little as possible, although they may give a friendly hello on sight. The ethnic family may feel isolated due to the difficulty of making friends in that neighborhood. Subconsciously, the balancing scale in the white people’s heads tips a little bit more towards wanting to move out of the neighborhood…
Also, I’d like to chime in with my theory that “racism” is really cultural prejudice. That is, discrimination seems to only really occur against groups that are culturally different. Hence, when the Italians and Poles moved here, they were discriminated against until they blended into American culture. If you talk and act different, that’s when people feel uncomfortable. Racism against “swarthy” people is not really because of the “swarthiness”, as you will see if you observe how much more easily an “Oreo”* can fit into a group of white people.
Anyway, no one seems to be able to agree on the cause. So, what’s a realistic non-horrifying solution?
- Oreo = black on the outside, white on the inside. I’m not sure how politically correct this term is.
That’s correct.
Let’s make sure that the goalposts are fixed:
You are asking for a cite to a study which (1) shows a relationship between some genetic attribute and some racial group; and (2) has not been debunked. Correct?
You have confused–or at least conflated–what is innate behaviour and the capacity to learn.
The maximum capacity to learn something–to understand it and to act on it–is genetic. A chimpanzee might be trained to use simple sign language or use a flush toilet, for instance, but you couldn’t teach it quantum physics and no chimp society is going to develop a more sophisticated golf driver. They probably won’t even get as far as developing decent golf courses.
What genetics does is create a maximum potential to learn, understand, have insight and so on. And the expression of our human success is obviously influenced as much by our genes as by our environment. The 5 children of the family next door have nearly identical nurturing circumstances. The brightest one is off to be a neurosurgeon–barely got any attention at all because the family’s resources were spent on their neediest child. The least bright one had tutors and special help all through school but still ended up not finishing high school, getting involved with drugs and spending time at the courthouse. I’m sure she learned more than she would have had she not had such extraordinary extra help, but she was never going to learn calculus. The other three are somewhere in between. Genes.
We call these places in the UK ‘sinkhole’ estates.
Many of these are actually not inner cities, but are publicly funded housing projects.
Many of those ‘council estates’ were populated from the slum clearance programs that took place in a succession of waves, especially during the ‘arrogant architecture’ of the 1960’s - people who thought that they had the power to create communities, when in fact they did plenty to destroy them - despite all the warnings.
In the UK, those sinkholes are often white populated, and the remaining inner city slums have a mixure of various racial goups.
This is usually attributed to immigrant poverty, the first place that almost any incoming immigrant moves is to the areas where housing is cheapest, this in turn builds up a community of that group, and in turn attracts more of the same group to settle in the area.
Quite how one can see this as genetic is something I would need to see very well proven.
You can see waves of immigration into UK cities, they all tended to land in certain parts of town, and many of those eventually moved out, from the Irish through to Jews fleeing Russian pogroms, through to Scots seeking work toblacks encouraged to come here during the 1950’s worker shortages (the Windrush years) right through to Asians, and economic migrants.
Given the wide range of racial groups that have moved into inner city areas, the idea this is genetic impovershiment is laughable, because there is probably more human genetic diversity in these areas than in the homogenised suburbs further out from the town centre.
One recognised phenomenon that has been alluded to here is that of a community of the ‘left behinds’. Having come from a well known sink hole estate, one of the first things I did when I secured decently paid and gainful employment was to move out, and I can tell you that is what all those who have anything about them do.
Absloutely key to my getting out was the chance of education, and to learn a trade - in the armed forces. Half the British army, maybe more comes from such places.
Give the downtrodden a route and they will make their own way out of the ghettos, that ghettos exist and perhaps expand is a commentary on the way society intentionally and untintentionally places obstacles in the way.
Genetics it is not, economics it most definately is.
I basically agree with this, and I would note that in these types of discussions, there is a tendency by some to conflate the following two positions: (1) many differences in human behavior are informed to some degree by genetics; and (2) differences in human behavior are solely determined by genetics.
Your argument is that there’s a poverty gene or group of genetic markers that predisposes one to poverty and I say that’s nonsense.
Find some study or research that backs up what you think about this topic.
Again, let’s make sure the goalposts are fixed:
Do you agree that lower intelligence predisposes one to poverty?
Hey wasn’t it you that said that “hellhole ghetto syndrome” has a genetic link?
Basically yes.
To futher fix thos goalposts: What’s your definition of both intelligence and poverty.
For purposes of this discussion, I will define “intelligence” as ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience; as measured by an IQ test or some other test which correlates with an IQ test.
When you used the word “poverty,” I basically understood it to mean a state of having relatively low income or assets.
Now will you please answer my question?
You have absolutely no way whatsoever of normalising the effects of economics to make this broad statement that genetics plays a significant role at the level of society upon poverty.
Using your assertion Brazil we should suppose that the Chinese, the Irish, the Scottish any any other enthnic group that found itself collectively living in poverty are genetically disposed to low intelligence.
You can go around the world, through history and find almost every ethnic group has found itself in straightened circumstances - you telling me thats genetic?
Complete nonsense
I expect you will somehow try to point to the specific invididual wholse intellectual capacity reduces their ability to learn and to earn, but that is a very great distance from having the evidence to put a blanket across a whole group and label them.
I have seen plenty of individuals whose intelligence is nothing like on a standing with mine and yet they earn far greater amounts than I - this has been the downfall of many a family business where the senior management were selected upon the basis of birth instead of ability.
Intelligence is not, now, nor has ever been the sole determinant of income earning capacity and by extension of your somewhat befuddled argument, neither is genetics.
Lol no. Try reading my posts.
Nice strawman.
Ok, let’s do this: Please either (a) show me where I made such a claim; or (b) admit that I made no such claim and apologize. Your choice.