Genes Do Not Matter (again) - Individuality Is An Inevitable And Unpredictable Result Of Development

[haidut]

What major or field of study would best encompass the esoterica we discuss on this forum

I think biophysics would be the closest, as well as some physical chemistry and of course biochemistry.

 

[Drareg]

This sounds like the ravings of a conspiracy theorist.

Lots of people in on a grand deception - even though competing interests would sink that quick.

There's money in it so it would happen - even though there's money in everything.

This mode of thinking can be used to "explain" any position.

I understand it may appear that way,but like you say ,we can apply it to everything and that is the problem,the heritability brigade will convince they are not getting funded and the opposite is true,all of their messiahs and high priests all have tenure,in some cases emeritus professors.
Look at the semantics and what they mean for them,cross check this with research ,they are a cult of frauds maintaining a fairytale,the illusory shadows of heritability.

The majority of social psychologists are data miners and speculators,James Flynn is a psychologist,as I mentioned is another example playing the illusory game and profiting,he is supposed to the good guy in the bad cop/good cop routine.Their argument is on questionnaires and surveys,oh and don't forget what is defined as intelligent based on the psychopathic deluded British imperial system,these people are wilfully ignorant or do not comprehend the developments in "genetics" over the last few decades,what idiots will crunch data on DNA without accounting for influences within the data from epigenetics,this is stupidity and in many cases willfully ignorance. This is one example of a multitude.

Incidentally Peats newsletter came today after I wrote a reply,he covers many of the topics.
You would think the same thing about his newsletter,as in conspiracy theorist but what the CIA has released points in the direction he has been saying for years,the CIA have shaped cultures and have been doing it for years,mainly bad has come out of this,a little good.

 

[ecstatichamster]

one of the least understandable and yet potentially more important newsletters I've seen of his...

 

[Drareg]

one of the least understandable and yet potentially more important newsletters I've seen of his...

Have look into the CIA documents available,"available"documents that is.
They created many of our meanings from USA to Europe,in pop culture we see it as Americanisation of the west,they are also master opportunists.
Adam Curtis documentaries cover some interesting points relative to all this,you don't have to agree with all he shows but it's worth watching.

 

[lollipop]

This is the FBI not CIA, but has anyone seen this? Stunning details of how these people stole documents from FBI in Pennsylvania and learned about what Hoover was doing. Scary actually:

The Secret Burglary That Exposed J. Edgar Hoover's FBI

 

[haidut]

This is the FBI not CIA, but has anyone seen this? Stunning details of how these people stole documents from FBI in Pennsylvania and learned about what Hoover was doing. Scary actually:

The Secret Burglary That Exposed J. Edgar Hoover's FBI

"...The Raines family helped her locate the others involved in the burglary. Most of them agreed to break their silence four decades after they took on J. Edgar Hoover's FBI — and won."

Ahem...these people are nuts. They should have kept their mouths shut given that they had achieved their purpose and exposed the FBI. Now, their entire families and their relatives will be on a watchlist for life and quite possibly real-time surveillance. I would not be surprised if they start committing "suicide" one after the other, no doubt overwhelmed by guilt over what they had done...

 

[lollipop]

"...The Raines family helped her locate the others involved in the burglary. Most of them agreed to break their silence four decades after they took on J. Edgar Hoover's FBI — and won."

Ahem...these people are nuts. They should have kept their mouths shut given that they had achieved their purpose and exposed the FBI. Now, their entire families and their relatives will be on a watchlist for life and quite possibly real-time surveillance. I would not be surprised if they start committing "suicide" one after the other, no doubt overwhelmed by guilt over what they had done...

Yikes. I did not think about that. Urrrgh. True though...

 

[jaa]

You would think the same thing about his newsletter,as in conspiracy theorist but what the CIA has released points in the direction he has been saying for years,the CIA have shaped cultures and have been doing it for years,mainly bad has come out of this,a little good.

Funny you mention that. I subscribe to Peat's newsletter and I do think (and did think w.r.t. this latest newsletter) that Peat ventures into kookoo land when he starts talking about such things. I think hints of what he says are true (people looking out for their own interests and a bit of inertia w.r.t. the orthodoxy), but the degree and attention he ascribes seem way too high to me. And this is in the domain of human biochemistry, something that is much more complex and therefore ripe with false positives than figuring out whether genetic determinability exists.

Can you explain why so many smart scientists have this wrong? I am not versed enough in the field to check their math, but it seems consistent. What can account for so many smart people being consistently wrong about one thing and how do you know you're right and they're wrong? Answers along the lines of "their not smart" and "the authorities have fooled most of them in a way and the ones they haven't can't definitely prove them wrong" are highly unlikely and give me no reason to believe in your point of view.

I'm open to reasons, but you'll have to present some good ones that can clear that high hurdle.

 

[Drareg]

Funny you mention that. I subscribe to Peat's newsletter and I do think (and did think w.r.t. this latest newsletter) that Peat ventures into kookoo land when he starts talking about such things. I think hints of what he says are true (people looking out for their own interests and a bit of inertia w.r.t. the orthodoxy), but the degree and attention he ascribes seem way too high to me. And this is in the domain of human biochemistry, something that is much more complex and therefore ripe with false positives than figuring out whether genetic determinability exists.

Can you explain why so many smart scientists have this wrong? I am not versed enough in the field to check their math, but it seems consistent. What can account for so many smart people being consistently wrong about one thing and how do you know you're right and they're wrong? Answers along the lines of "their not smart" and "the authorities have fooled most of them in a way and the ones they haven't can't definitely prove them wrong" are highly unlikely and give me no reason to believe in your point of view.

I'm open to reasons, but you'll have to present some good ones that can clear that high hurdle.

You should provide examples of where you feel he is in Kookoo land,your too lazy to look into the CIA documents yet throw the loose claim of Kookoo land,there is a difference between being cynical and being full of hubris. Your projecting a youtube conspiracy theorist over what he is saying.

The scientists you mentioned are smart based on who's definition,yours? What scientists exactly?
You say ,"not versed enough in the field to check their math but it seems consistent" ,your passing judgement on something you don't understand,your in Kookoo land with your vague opinions.

The math is a tragedy,Dawkins "theory" was highlighted for this,on top of this the algorithms for your woo woo dominant hereditary have been found out,quick google and you will find how "smart scientists" the kind you like worked this out,here's a clue,their not social psychologists.
Statistics and correlates are ripe for fraud,when idiots don't factor in epigentic influences to hereditary studies it's hilarious,why would you ignore this point?

I provided examples for you to go look at in my previous posts,explain away the examples I gave you ,your playing the usual cliche hereditary cult responses, terms like "clear the high hurdle of evidence" preaching to the converted" "politically incorrect" "realist",a ton more like those responses form the cult online,it's the creation of the illusory high road.

What you should do is provide me the evidence you think conclusively proves your stance,the evidence you have is not science,it's a religion based on faith. The title of the thread is relevant to who should be providing evidence,you popped up with your opinion,you claimed it was on good evidence and that was it,no evidence form you.

 

[jaa]

You should provide examples of where you feel he is in Kookoo land,your too lazy to look into the CIA documents yet throw the loose claim of Kookoo land,there is a difference between being cynical and being full of hubris. Your projecting a youtube conspiracy theorist over what he is saying.

The scientists you mentioned are smart based on who's definition,yours? What scientists exactly?
You say ,"not versed enough in the field to check their math but it seems consistent" ,your passing judgement on something you don't understand,your in Kookoo land with your vague opinions.

The math is a tragedy,Dawkins "theory" was highlighted for this,on top of this the algorithms for your woo woo dominant hereditary have been found out,quick google and you will find how "smart scientists" the kind you like worked this out,here's a clue,their not social psychologists.
Statistics and correlates are ripe for fraud,when idiots don't factor in epigentic influences to hereditary studies it's hilarious,why would you ignore this point?

I provided examples for you to go look at in my previous posts,explain away the examples I gave you ,your playing the usual cliche hereditary cult responses, terms like "clear the high hurdle of evidence" preaching to the converted" "politically incorrect" "realist",a ton more like those responses form the cult online,it's the creation of the illusory high road.

What you should do is provide me the evidence you think conclusively proves your stance,the evidence you have is not science,it's a religion based on faith. The title of the thread is relevant to who should be providing evidence,you popped up with your opinion,you claimed it was on good evidence and that was it,no evidence form you.

It's much easier to assess the rightness or wrongness of claims using basic probability theory and common sense than it is to scientifically understand whatever niche field is the topic of discussion. It's simply not possible given the amount of information and the time one has in one's life time. That's why shortcuts are useful. I don't have to know how to design a modern jet plane to know that if I board one it will likely fly to my destination without crash and burning. I don't have to know how to create an experiment that proves the earth is round in order to be extremely confident that the earth is indeed round.

And the same goes for trusting the scientific consensus.

You say I'm hubric. You're the one who is claiming to have superior knowledge than people who dedicate their lives to the subject and are the best in their respective fields.

Here's a survey on genetic heritablity and IQ amongst experts in the field. IQ is one of more hotly contested traits in the study of genetics. You can expect experts to think other traits have a higher genetic heritability.

Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests

Here's a recent paper looking at the genetic herititablity amoung tissue cells.

Survey of the Heritability and Sparse Architecture of Gene Expression Traits across Human Tissues

Here's a recent article showing the association between polygenic scores and life outcomes

https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-belsky.pdf

And here's the top 10 replicated findings from behavourial genetics

https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf


The consensus and data don't seem to be on your side. So what do you know that these people don't?

It's generally a very good idea in life to take the outside view. All us humans are biased and easily persuaded and once we latch on to something and start rationalising it our levels of self-deception get more deeply entrenched. You don't have to answer my question, as things are getting a bit entrenched as it is, but if you find you are having trouble coming up with good reasons (ones that would make sense coming out of any one else's mouth) than you should be wary of the weight you give to that opinion.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

It's much easier to assess the rightness or wrongness of claims using basic probability theory and common sense than it is to scientifically understand whatever niche field is the topic of discussion. It's simply not possible given the amount of information and the time one has in one's life time. That's why shortcuts are useful. I don't have to know how to design a modern jet plane to know that if I board one it will likely fly to my destination without crash and burning. I don't have to know how to create an experiment that proves the earth is round in order to be extremely confident that the earth is indeed round.

And the same goes for trusting the scientific consensus.

You say I'm hubric. You're the one who is claiming to have superior knowledge than people who dedicate their lives to the subject and are the best in their respective fields.

Here's a survey on genetic heritablity and IQ amongst experts in the field. IQ is one of more hotly contested traits in the study of genetics. You can expect experts to think other traits have a higher genetic heritability.

Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests

Here's a recent paper looking at the genetic herititablity amoung tissue cells.

Survey of the Heritability and Sparse Architecture of Gene Expression Traits across Human Tissues

Here's a recent article showing the association between polygenic scores and life outcomes

https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-belsky.pdf

And here's the top 10 replicated findings from behavourial genetics

https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf


The consensus and data don't seem to be on your side. So what do you know that these people don't?

It's generally a very good idea in life to take the outside view. All us humans are biased and easily persuaded and once we latch on to something and start rationalising it our levels of self-deception get more deeply entrenched. You don't have to answer my question, as things are getting a bit entrenched as it is, but if you find you are having trouble coming up with good reasons (ones that would make sense coming out of any one else's mouth) than you should be wary of the weight you give to that opinion.

I remember reading a study that showed that men exposed to high stress produce sperm that is more likely to sore sociopathic sons.

prenatal women exposed to stress produce children that are measurably different from those of non stressed mothers

Children raised by single mothers develop quicker and have different personalities, more mental illness, lower iq, etc etc

The best predictor of mental illness is being an orphan. Over 50% of orphans are on psych medications.

Is there a gene shared by orphans that makes one significantly likely to be crazy?

Is there a gene shared by children of single mothers that causes them to have lower iq and be more violent?

Is there a gene shared by heavy meat eaters and milk drinkers that leads to large build and height?

what is the genetic difference between a domesticated dog and a feral dog that causes them to act so different...or a locust and a grasshopper

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

I think biophysics would be the closest, as well as some physical chemistry and of course biochemistry.

thanks. wish I could do all three

 

[Regina]

I remember reading a study that showed that men exposed to high stress produce sperm that is more likely to sore sociopathic sons.

prenatal women exposed to stress produce children that are measurably different from those of non stressed mothers

Children raised by single mothers develop quicker and have different personalities, more mental illness, lower iq, etc etc

The best predictor of mental illness is being an orphan. Over 50% of orphans are on psych medications.

Is there a gene shared by orphans that makes one significantly likely to be crazy?

Is there a gene shared by children of single mothers that causes them to have lower iq and be more violent?

Is there a gene shared by heavy meat eaters and milk drinkers that leads to large build and height?

what is the genetic difference between a domesticated dog and a feral dog that causes them to act so different...or a locust and a grasshopper

p.s. this was a real good book about dogs. Ray Coppinger (another cool Ray) studies dogs at dumps in Mexico City and Eithiopia and also wins iditarod games with what he calls "village" dogs. Anyways, he talks about the most vicious dogs he has ever come across are the ones at the dump who actually have homes but are mostly neglected.

 

[Dante]

thanks. wish I could do all three

You can already start learning intro biochemistry. There is a free course on edx coming up from June 5 ( by Harvard university - some are not a fan of them but anyways ). MIT ocw and free courses has notes and lectures on biochem.

" I remember reading a study that showed that men exposed to high stress produce sperm that is more likely to sore sociopathic sons." -> I don't think they can measure sociopathy in sperm but if you can provide/link the study, I would like to take a look.

 

[jaguar43]

It's much easier to assess the rightness or wrongness of claims using basic probability theory and common sense than it is to scientifically understand whatever niche field is the topic of discussion. It's simply not possible given the amount of information and the time one has in one's life time. That's why shortcuts are useful. I don't have to know how to design a modern jet plane to know that if I board one it will likely fly to my destination without crash and burning. I don't have to know how to create an experiment that proves the earth is round in order to be extremely confident that the earth is indeed round.

And the same goes for trusting the scientific consensus.

You say I'm hubric. You're the one who is claiming to have superior knowledge than people who dedicate their lives to the subject and are the best in their respective fields.

Here's a survey on genetic heritablity and IQ amongst experts in the field. IQ is one of more hotly contested traits in the study of genetics. You can expect experts to think other traits have a higher genetic heritability.

Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests

Here's a recent paper looking at the genetic herititablity amoung tissue cells.

Survey of the Heritability and Sparse Architecture of Gene Expression Traits across Human Tissues

Here's a recent article showing the association between polygenic scores and life outcomes

https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-belsky.pdf

And here's the top 10 replicated findings from behavourial genetics

https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf


The consensus and data don't seem to be on your side. So what do you know that these people don't?

It's generally a very good idea in life to take the outside view. All us humans are biased and easily persuaded and once we latch on to something and start rationalising it our levels of self-deception get more deeply entrenched. You don't have to answer my question, as things are getting a bit entrenched as it is, but if you find you are having trouble coming up with good reasons (ones that would make sense coming out of any one else's mouth) than you should be wary of the weight you give to that opinion.

In the second to last study, there was a question asked to the authors of the study whether the children who had higher polygenic scores came from socially advantage families. The author stated that since the economically successful individuals carry specific genotypes then their children would inherited their genes. I find that extremely biased. The study doesn't prove that the environmental enrichment of living in a higher SES household doesn't influence intelligence, so it doesn't add to the evidence supporting genetic determinism.

In the very last study you referenced. The author of the paper is knowable for twin studies, which he references in that specific paper extensively. if you read Peat, you would know that those studies regarding twins ignore the similar prenatal influences in utero. So of course twins are going to have similar outcomes to certain health and behavior conditions.

I just don't see the evidence for genetic determinism representing any relation to biology or inheritance. I think the attraction to it from scientists is the elitism that it carries within it's framework. It's easy to say that you are predetermined with characteristics that cannot change. It's more work to make sure people get what they need to develop properly.

 

[jaa]

I remember reading a study that showed that men exposed to high stress produce sperm that is more likely to sore sociopathic sons.

prenatal women exposed to stress produce children that are measurably different from those of non stressed mothers

Children raised by single mothers develop quicker and have different personalities, more mental illness, lower iq, etc etc

The best predictor of mental illness is being an orphan. Over 50% of orphans are on psych medications.

Is there a gene shared by orphans that makes one significantly likely to be crazy?

Is there a gene shared by children of single mothers that causes them to have lower iq and be more violent?

Is there a gene shared by heavy meat eaters and milk drinkers that leads to large build and height?

what is the genetic difference between a domesticated dog and a feral dog that causes them to act so different...or a locust and a grasshopper

All this stuff is taken into account when assessing genes and heritability. Nothing is 100% genetic. A more aggressive domestic dog will likely be a more aggressive feral dog. Researchers know all this.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

You can already start learning intro biochemistry. There is a free course on edx coming up from June 5 ( by Harvard university - some are not a fan of them but anyways ). MIT ocw and free courses has notes and lectures on biochem.

" I remember reading a study that showed that men exposed to high stress produce sperm that is more likely to sore sociopathic sons." -> I don't think they can measure sociopathy in sperm but if you can provide/link the study, I would like to take a look.

I think this is the study. What it shows is that male rats that are exposed to high levels of stress have children who respond less to stress. The effect is genetic, and not anything to do with child
rearing

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

In the very last study you referenced. The author of the paper is knowable for twin studies, which he references in that specific paper extensively. if you read Peat, you would know that those studies regarding twins ignore the similar prenatal influences in utero. So of course twins are going to have similar outcomes to certain health and behavior conditions.

I would say treatment directly after birth matters as well, the amount of nurturing a newborn received has a large effect on their brain

 

[jaa]

In the second to last study, there was a question asked to the authors of the study whether the children who had higher polygenic scores came from socially advantage families. The author stated that since the economically successful individuals carry specific genotypes then their children would inherited their genes. I find that extremely biased. The study doesn't prove that the environmental enrichment of living in a higher SES household doesn't influence intelligence, so it doesn't add to the evidence supporting genetic determinism.

How would you expect genes that account for success in the modern era to stratify along SES layers? Again, the researchers are clearly aware of the "bias" you see, yet make their statements anyway.

In the very last study you referenced. The author of the paper is knowable for twin studies, which he references in that specific paper extensively. if you read Peat, you would know that those studies regarding twins ignore the similar prenatal influences in utero. So of course twins are going to have similar outcomes to certain health and behavior conditions.

That certainly seems like a potential mechanism. But given all the other evidence there is for genetics influencing outcomes, it seems rash to assign prenatal environment more weight (let alone 100% of the weight) over genetics. Is there any evidence for that claim?

I just don't see the evidence for genetic determinism representing any relation to biology or inheritance. I think the attraction to it from scientists is the elitism that it carries within it's framework. It's easy to say that you are predetermined with characteristics that cannot change. It's more work to make sure people get what they need to develop properly.

That's one way to frame it, but it's not steelmanning your opponent. Try coming up with arguments that don't paint your opponents as elitist and who understand that environment plays some role (say between 20-70%). And scientists aren't a monolith. They aren't trying to save themselves the hard work of "making sure people get what they need to develop properly." There isn't one individual on earth doing that who you can point to and say "Aha! That's why they're motivated by genetic determinism!" That's just silly.

 

[Drareg]

It's much easier to assess the rightness or wrongness of claims using basic probability theory and common sense than it is to scientifically understand whatever niche field is the topic of discussion. It's simply not possible given the amount of information and the time one has in one's life time. That's why shortcuts are useful. I don't have to know how to design a modern jet plane to know that if I board one it will likely fly to my destination without crash and burning. I don't have to know how to create an experiment that proves the earth is round in order to be extremely confident that the earth is indeed round.

And the same goes for trusting the scientific consensus.

You say I'm hubric. You're the one who is claiming to have superior knowledge than people who dedicate their lives to the subject and are the best in their respective fields.

Here's a survey on genetic heritablity and IQ amongst experts in the field. IQ is one of more hotly contested traits in the study of genetics. You can expect experts to think other traits have a higher genetic heritability.

Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests

Here's a recent paper looking at the genetic herititablity amoung tissue cells.

Survey of the Heritability and Sparse Architecture of Gene Expression Traits across Human Tissues

Here's a recent article showing the association between polygenic scores and life outcomes

https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-belsky.pdf

And here's the top 10 replicated findings from behavourial genetics

https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf


The consensus and data don't seem to be on your side. So what do you know that these people don't?

It's generally a very good idea in life to take the outside view. All us humans are biased and easily persuaded and once we latch on to something and start rationalising it our levels of self-deception get more deeply entrenched. You don't have to answer my question, as things are getting a bit entrenched as it is, but if you find you are having trouble coming up with good reasons (ones that would make sense coming out of any one else's mouth) than you should be wary of the weight you give to that opinion.

You do need to know the design of a plane to get on it and fly,if it doesn't have wings it's unlikely you will get on.
The earth is not "round" and I'm not implying flat earther,many people studied the shape of earth for millennia and done that experiment for you.
Probability theory highlights the above,it sounds like you got that theory from a stockbroker selling gold,common sense is easily fabricated.

The first study is not "expert opinion" it's another puff piece designed to make it into mainstream media to pump the pioneer fund backed heritability of IQ tests and keep the hype around psychology and genes so social psychologists stay employed,the wording is clearly loaded,as I mentioned these guys have been claiming they receive no funding because of a controversial subject yet all of them have tenure as Professors,they also have backing from the racist pioneer fund,the gene IQ dogma regularly makes it into media and genetics is pumped full of money by pharmaceutical companies looking for gene specific pills,pharmaceuticals companies would love genetic determinism.
Said professors have been shown to be corrupting the tests and projecting their own intreptation over the results,this has been covered ad nauseam ,Lynn is a fraud,testing kids IQ that were in a home for the mentally retarded in Africa was done by Lynn and added to scores of said country.

IQ tests are not testing intelligence in a more advanced way ,the woo woo "g" can be tested by urintaing and hitting the bowl consistently ,making coffee tests "g" everything is "g" it's the equivalent of using quantum physics to keep a falsified argument going,psychologists need this to exist for their pay checks.

Those studies you posted are the equivalent of religious cult creating a fantasy to create mania around the next big thing with genome,to get money of course and stay employed,it's like the early days of tech start ups for academia,big pharma being the venture captilist,of course the companies took government for funding ride too. Oh let's not forget the intermingling with this group and their psychopathic racist arm of psychologists,Lynn et al

Genes, behavior, and behavior genetics

"According to the ‘first law’ of behavior genetics, ‘All human behavioral traits are heritable.’ Accepting the validity of this first law and employing statistical methods, researchers within psychology, sociology, political science, economics, and business claim to have demonstrated that all the behaviors studied by their disciplines are heritable—no matter how culturally specific these behaviors appear to be. Further, in many cases they claim to have identified specific genes that play a role in those behaviors. The validity of behavior genetics as a discipline depends upon the validity of the research methods used to justify such claims. It also depends, foundationally, upon certain key assumptions concerning the relationship between genotype (one's specific DNA sequences) and phenotype (any and all observable traits or characteristics). In this article, I examine—and find serious flaws with—both the methodologies of behavior genetics and the underlying assumptions concerning the genotype–phenotype relationship".

"The claim that over nine million SNPs account for under half the heritability of ‘educational attainment’ lacks any independent empirical justification beyond the assumptions that the infinitesimal model is true and that genome wide heritability estimates and risk scores are valid. Adding together an untold number of SNPs that individually fail to achieve statistical significance by the acknowledged standards of GWA studies is highly problematic. The expression ‘add together’ here is intended literally, since most GWA studies of heritability rely, in part or entirely, on an assumption of ‘additivity.’ For example, the claim that 8000 SNPs account for half the heritability of schizophrenia[33] depends upon the assumption that each SNP contributes 1/8000 to half the heritability. The assumption of additivity is used despite this candid acknowledgement by two researchers: see quote below-

"We know this assumption of additive contribution is probably wrong. Epistasis—interaction between genetic loci—is important and pervasive. Unfortunately, we know very little about epistatic interactions. Given [that] the specifics of the interactions are unknown, additivity provides a workable default".

Hilarious,two researchers are caught up in the buzz of gene hunting! We are getting financial backing just go with it and make it all sound complex with load of information!


Your quote below is misguided,the fabric of reality as we understand implies this for all human perceptions. The outside view is the environment ,you just defaulted to this intuitively,reality however is there is no in and out just your current "self-deception".
Reasons that make sense coming out of someone's else mouth is what we all regurgitate and piece together regularly,your trying to define good reasons and making sense relative to your perceptions/bias ,something you critiqued in your earlier paragraph.


"It's generally a very good idea in life to take the outside view. All us humans are biased and easily persuaded and once we latch on to something and start rationalising it our levels of self-deception get more deeply entrenched. You don't have to answer my question, as things are getting a bit entrenched as it is, but if you find you are having trouble coming up with good reasons (ones that would make sense coming out of any one else's mouth) than you should be wary of the weight you give to that opinion."

Don't forget the research your on the side of is heavily funded contrary to the cries of victimisation.......