Why do PC Liberals hate/deny genetics so much?

[Winston]

I have some taboo but logical questions. Why do liberals and politically correct people always seem to deny the genetic factor in human behavior, even though science says that 50 percent of our personality/behavior comes from our genes? What drives them to be so irrationally against the science of genes and their effect?

Why do they have a need to believe that everything is a social construct conditioned by culture and that we are all born a blank slate? Some even go so far as saying that there are no differences between men and women other than cultural and biological differences, which is totally insane. It doesn't make sense. What's their motivation for denying something so obvious?

Whenever I ask them the following, they get stumped:

1. If all our behaviors are conditioned, why was I born with a fear of heights ever since I was a toddler? Who or what conditioned me to have a fear of heights?

2. Why is there a proven correlation between race and IQ that transcends environment or upbringing? See here:
http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedric ... n/Race.htm

3. Why do adopted children have IQ's that are closer to that of their biological parents than of their adopted parents?

4. Why do fraternal twins separated at birth develop many of the same habits, personalities, choices and names, as studies show?

Politically correct liberals can never address these questions. I get no answers from them. Why is that? Why can't they change their beliefs to fit the facts, rather than deny the facts that don't fit into their beliefs (aka cognitive dissonance)?

I wrote an article about this here:

Politically Correct Fanatics: Their Denial of Patterns and Genetics
http://www.happierabroad.com/Politicall ... natics.htm

Furthermore, why do liberals emphatically claim that there are no differences between races or groups of people, other than cultural or individual differences? Consider this: We acknowledge that animals, such as dogs and cats, have different behaviors and temperaments based on their breed and color. A German Shepherd for example, has a very different personality than a Golden Retriever. And black cats are more wild and independent than white cats, while tabby cats are more friendly, warm and cuddly. Obviously, these animal differences are not due to culture or environment. So if different colors and breeds are correlated with different animal traits and temperaments, why wouldn't it be the same for human races? Why are innate differences between human races a taboo? What's the logic behind that?

David Duke argued that differences in human races is akin to differences in dog breeds in his documentary about preserving human diversity and freedom here: https://vimeo.com/39001125



Do liberals even care about truth? Or are they all about not offending others? What is the rationale or logic behind political correctness? Does the politically correct crowd really think that political correctness=truth?

And why is political correctness so popular, especially among young people, and especially among females? It's almost like a fad or trend among young people (especially females) to hold politically correct views such as "there are no differences between groups or races, only cultural and individual differences exist" etc. They seem to adopt such views like a religion, without thinking and without regard for evidence, logic or science.

It's really weird and doesn't make sense. And it's one of the reasons why I often feel alienated around young adult crowds (in addition to their superficial conversation around lighthearted topics only, and their expectation of having to act positive about everything). It's like whenever I describe differences I observe, they become argumentative, as if I've violate some holy ground of theirs. Very weird.

[Jester]

Speculation / quick answers:

(1) Differences between men and women are "prima facie" evidence of Divine order in Creation, and Creation by a loving and thoughtful God -- i.e. we are joyful, lustful and loving, not automatons or amoebae.

OR

(2) To acknowledge race differences, in the absence of belief in God, leads quickly to hard-core Eugenics and Malthusian population control. Darwin's "Theory of the Evolution of the Species Through Survival of the Fittest" is thus inescapably pro-genocidal. Racial genocide is seen as natural and desirable. Those at the top, the "PTB", of course see this, and occasionally even talk about it (Prince Philip etc.) but they hide this distrurbing truth from those below who are not "ready". They hush-up race differences because they see it as "for your own good". No need to alarm the herd.

[Winston]

Speculation / quick answers:

(1) Differences between men and women are "prima facie" evidence of Divine order in Creation, and Creation by a loving and thoughtful God -- i.e. we are joyful, lustful and loving, not automatons or amoebae.

OR

(2) To acknowledge race differences, in the absence of belief in God, leads quickly to hard-core Eugenics and Malthusian population control. Darwin's "Theory of the Evolution of the Species Through Survival of the Fittest" is thus inescapably pro-genocidal. Racial genocide is seen as natural and desirable. Those at the top, the "PTB", of course see this, and occasionally even talk about it (Prince Philip etc.) but they hide this distrurbing truth from those below who are not "ready". They hush-up race differences because they see it as "for your own good". No need to alarm the herd.

That's a good point. It does seem that only lower class people adopt this politically correct belief that genetic differences don't exist, that there is no such thing as human nature, that everyone is born a blank slate, and that everything is a social construct. Higher class people don't tend to gravitate toward political correctness. Have you noticed that?

Btw, I just added these points and questions to the OP. What's your take on them?

Furthermore, why do liberals emphatically claim that there are no differences between races or groups of people, other than cultural or individual differences? Consider this: We acknowledge that animals, such as dogs and cats, have different behaviors and temperaments based on their breed and color. A German Shepherd for example, has a very different personality than a Golden Retriever. And black cats are more wild and independent than white cats, while tabby cats are more friendly, warm and cuddly. Obviously, these animal differences are not due to culture or environment. So if different colors and breeds are correlated with different animal traits and temperaments, why wouldn't it be the same for human races? Why are innate differences between human races a taboo? What's the logic behind that?

David Duke argued that differences in human races is akin to differences in dog breeds in his documentary about preserving human diversity and freedom here: https://vimeo.com/39001125

Do liberals even care about truth? Or are they all about not offending others? What is the rationale or logic behind political correctness? Does the politically correct crowd really think that political correctness=truth?

And why is political correctness so popular, especially among young people, and especially among females? It's almost like a fad or trend among young people (especially females) to hold politically correct views such as "there are no differences between groups or races, only cultural and individual differences exist" etc. They seem to adopt such views like a religion, without thinking and without regard for evidence, logic or science.

It's really weird and doesn't make sense. And it's one of the reasons why I often feel alienated around young adult crowds (in addition to their superficial conversation around lighthearted topics only, and their expectation of having to act positive about everything). It's like whenever I describe differences I observe, they become argumentative, as if I've violate some holy ground of theirs. Very weird.

[designer]

Speculation / quick answers:

(1) Differences between men and women are "prima facie" evidence of Divine order in Creation, and Creation by a loving and thoughtful God -- i.e. we are joyful, lustful and loving, not automatons or amoebae.

OR

(2) To acknowledge race differences, in the absence of belief in God, leads quickly to hard-core Eugenics and Malthusian population control. Darwin's "Theory of the Evolution of the Species Through Survival of the Fittest" is thus inescapably pro-genocidal. Racial genocide is seen as natural and desirable. Those at the top, the "PTB", of course see this, and occasionally even talk about it (Prince Philip etc.) but they hide this distrurbing truth from those below who are not "ready". They hush-up race differences because they see it as "for your own good". No need to alarm the herd.

Hahahahahaha!

[Jester]

That's a good point. It does seem that only lower class people adopt this politically correct belief that genetic differences don't exist, that there is no such thing as human nature, that everyone is born a blank slate, and that everything is a social construct. Higher class people don't tend to gravitate toward political correctness. Have you noticed that?

Yup. Anyone educated will want to know about a prospective in-law's family. And among themselves, the New York / New England elite even talk about "good breeding". Been there, heard it. Can't blame them - except for the fact they believe in secrets.

Furthermore, why do liberals emphatically claim that there are no differences between races or groups of people, other than cultural or individual differences? Consider this: We acknowledge that animals, such as dogs and cats, have different behaviors and temperaments based on their breed and color. A German Shepherd for example, has a very different personality than a Golden Retriever. And black cats are more wild and independent than white cats, while tabby cats are more friendly, warm and cuddly. Obviously, these animal differences are not due to culture or environment. So if different colors and breeds are correlated with different animal traits and temperaments, why wouldn't it be the same for human races? Why are innate differences between human races a taboo? What's the logic behind that?

David Duke argued that differences in human races is akin to differences in dog breeds in his documentary about preserving human diversity and freedom here: https://vimeo.com/39001125

Didnt watch the Duke video, but anyway I do agree with the point about dog breeds. We are different breeds, fact. Watch a Mexican woman clean, or an Islander man hunt for opportunity. Different temperaments, ingrained behaviors, etc. OK to mix, OK not to mix, nothing wrong with being a race-ist or a breed-ist, as long as you don't mistreat other breeds (or mutts). "

'Sup to you". Or as Jesus said to Peter, "Whatsoever ye bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven." I.e. - "'Sup to you".

Do liberals even care about truth? Or are they all about not offending others? What is the rationale or logic behind political correctness? Does the politically correct crowd really think that political correctness=truth?

No they don't care at all about truth. they change readily, like Stalin courting Hitler. Or FDR courting segregationists, or imprisoning Japs. I think they just seek power.

Instead of stormtrooper means, or Attila The Hun means, they kind of use Hary Potter means. Magic. Being liked is a form of power.

Enforcing an Emperor's-New-Clothes type myth can be power too. The Pearl Harbor lie, the Holohoax, and now the 9/11 Osama Fantasy etc - you have to believe these or else be an outcast. Power.

And why is political correctness so popular, especially among young people, and especially among females? It's almost like a fad or trend among young people (especially females) to hold politically correct views such as "there are no differences between groups or races, only cultural and individual differences exist" etc. They seem to adopt such views like a religion, without thinking and without regard for evidence, logic or science.

On another thread.

It's really weird and doesn't make sense. And it's one of the reasons why I often feel alienated around young adult crowds (in addition to their superficial conversation around lighthearted topics only, and their expectation of having to act positive about everything). It's like whenever I describe differences I observe, they become argumentative, as if I've violate some holy ground of theirs. Very weird.

Yes it's hard to hang with idiots, young or old. That's why alcohol and music were invented. Chill.

[Winston]

Another point. Have any of you noticed that a lot of young people don't even know that they have politically correct views? For example, they will say that they don't like political correctness or censorship, but then right afterward they will say that innate differences between humans don't exist and that only cultural differences exist. Etc. Don't you hate that? lol

[momopi]

I'd also add that diet affects physical development in various degrees.

Among my friends, I've observed several cases where the Vietnamese parents are short, and their sons raised in America on steak & eggs sprout to 5'10" - 6'.

But if you feed the same diet to Pacific islanders, they tend to grow horizontally.

[Jester]

I'd also add that diet affects physical development in various degrees.

Among my friends, I've observed several cases where the Vietnamese parents are short, and their sons raised in America on steak & eggs sprout to 5'10" - 6'.

But if you feed the same diet to Pacific islanders, they tend to grow horizontally.

Haha Islanders from Fiji, Guam, Maoris etc are built for spearfishing and rugby. Hard not to like them, never want to fight them.

[Cornfed]

Do liberals even care about truth? Or are they all about not offending others? What is the rationale or logic behind political correctness? Does the politically correct crowd really think that political correctness=truth?

No, they don't have any concept of truth. Liberals are women and men who may as well be women, and as such they are essentially grown children. They therefore rightfully perceive themselves as helpless dependants of whichever men are protecting them and feeding them on a given day and will do and say whatever they think those men want. Hence they will spout any beliefs authority figures put in front of them while actually believing nothing. As for an integrated mental model of objective reality that they try to reconcile with observations, they simply don't have one. They are not real people as such and probably have no souls or very young souls.

This explains why they often become hysterical when you express disagreement with one of the silly fantasies they have been programmed to spout. They interpret this as undermining the authority figures the fantasies originated from and therefore undermining their lifeline without presenting a viable alternative. It is just like when a child becomes upset about someone criticizing his parents. This also explains their apparent hypocrisy, although since they don't really believe anything, they are not really hypocrites in their own terms. So they will quite happily, for example, yammer on about the benefits of racial integration while spending a fortune in order to avoid all contact with blacks. They just make the noises they have been ordered to and then proceed to take sensible action to protect themselves from dangerous wildlife.

[Jester]

No, they don't have any concept of truth. Liberals are women and men who may as well be women, and as such they are essentially grown children. They therefore rightfully perceive themselves as helpless dependants of whichever men are protecting them and feeding them on a given day and will do and say whatever they think those men want. Hence they will spout any beliefs authority figures put in front of them while actually believing nothing. As for an integrated mental model of objective reality that they try to reconcile with observations, they simply don't have one. They are not real people as such and probably have no souls or very young souls.

This explains why they often become hysterical when you express disagreement with one of the silly fantasies they have been programmed to spout. They interpret this as undermining the authority figures the fantasies originated from and therefore undermining their lifeline without presenting a viable alternative. It is just like when a child becomes upset about someone criticizing his parents. This also explains their apparent hypocrisy, although since they don't really believe anything, they are not really hypocrites in their own terms. So they will quite happily, for example, yammer on about the benefits of racial integration while spending a fortune in order to avoid all contact with blacks. They just make the noises they have been ordered to and then proceed to take sensible action to protect themselves from dangerous wildlife.

Good stuff here.

[Winston]

I got an idea.

Maybe the reason why people want so badly to believe that they are all born as blank slates with no genetic influence, is because it gives them a feeling of control over their lives to reinforce their belief that they are the master of their own destiny?

But if so, wouldn't those who wish to blame their behavior on their genes have an incentive to believe in the genetic factor?

Of course, feminists love the "blank slate/everything is a social construct" belief because it gives them an excuse to redefine themselves in whatever way they want, so that they don't have to conform to traditional roles for their gender. In doing so, they go against nature and the natural male/female energies, which results in the destruction of relationships, natural attraction and romantic love.

Also, this deconstructionist belief that every behavior is cultural, appeals to lower class people because it puts them on equal footing with the elite, erasing any notion that they might be genetically inferior or that a racial hierarchy exists, to squelch the threat of Darwinian eugenics being considered. So there is a political reason for this too. Is that right?

[NorthAmericanguy]

I'd also add that diet affects physical development in various degrees.

Among my friends, I've observed several cases where the Vietnamese parents are short, and their sons raised in America on steak & eggs sprout to 5'10" - 6'.

But if you feed the same diet to Pacific islanders, they tend to grow horizontally.

+1

[imaverycoolcowboy]

I think we do have to exercise some degree of caution with overgeneralizing.

I think there is no real evidence that a child will be a criminal simply because his father or grandfather was one.. unless he was influenced by them. Or that a child will be doomed to illiteracy or poverty because that was true of their parents. While achievement may not end up equal for everyone I believe opportunities should be equal for all.

Each individual should be judged on their merits and abilities and not according to their racial background as was practiced in the past when blacks and Chinese were denied education in America because their race was backward (or heathen) and considered not to be able to become educated or civilized.

[woodwater]

Yes, but...

There are times when extremes in environment during childhood will have a profound effect on brain development and you cannot discount this. Psychosocial dwarfism, for example, when it occurs, is inflicted on a child by parents, not something genetically inherited. There is a 'use it or lose it' period of brain development during which any loss is permanent. Remember the Romanian orphans that were famously left in cribs to grow up almost entirely without human contact for a great length of time? A number of them had their IQ's dropped radically because of this. A few even suffered such brain shrinkage that their skulls caved in a bit. These are FACTS. So no sane person can say that IQ is ALWAYS independent of environment. And for a human to have empathy for others a close bond with an adult caretaker in the first three years of life is a non-negotiable requirement. Environment in early childhood is a critical factor. Serial killers come from equal parts genetics and environment, whether you like that fact or not.

It's also my direct observation that some people, perhaps genetically, are more/less susceptible to environmental factors than others.

I'm well aware of the power of genes, and the studies you site but human experience is more complex than that. To say genes are always 100% of everything is beyond ludicrous, as nothing actually supports this claim, even the studies you write about. Largely true, yes, but 100% is not shown anywhere. There are some identical twins separated at birth, for instance, who do not match one another to such extremes. I have seen this also mentioned by the same people who conducted those studies. Nothing is absolute.

To say genetics is everything is eugenics. It smacks of Hitler, and as far as I'm concerned, a complete lack of a conscience.

Liberal or conservative has nothing to do with this. And I don't know anyone who denies the influence of genetic traits. It's just that the all or nothing argument, on either side, falls short.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

To the question I say, "Who cares?" Regardless of the genetic endowment of talent, the factor most important in our society is where we end up as individuals.

Grit, hard work, initiative, ambition, and social capital go way farther than genetics in terms of achievement.

So I have far more respect for a "genetically disadvantaged" man who is born into the lower class, but attains middle class status than I do for a "genetically advantaged" man who remains in the same class all his life.

The focus should be on effort and attainment regardless of starting position. Those who are obsessed with genetics tend to try to justify the oppression and classification of people according to group status.

So again, who cares? We all start with a hand of cards (some better than others). The best hand of cards does not always win in the end however. Same with genetics.