Thinking the unthinkable

Re:Thinking the unthinkable by dinkumthinkum on Sunday December 16, 2012 @06:13PM (#4929970)

Do you really believe that though? It seems like a nice just-so story that has a nice sociological tie-in with "frontier ism." I don't think that's genetic at all; I think it's just hand-wavy. Somewhere around half of people in this country believe the world is about 6,000 years old, think people can live to be 900 years and so on; I don't know if that is "mavericky." I think the race to find genes for every kind of behavior is a bit misguided and simplistic. I don't think Europe was trying to get rid of any genes during the times of pilgrims and so forth. The pilgrims were a dreadful lot that many were happy to see go but I don't think it was as you describe; it may fit in nicely with this explanation, but I think it is too simplistic.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thinking the unthinkable by Mz on Sunday December 16, 2012 @06:53PM (#4930100)

I have a genetic disorder, as does my oldest son. It is homozygous recessive, which means my youngest son and ex husband are carriers. Both my kids were extremely challenging to raise and I ended up homeschooling them both, in part to not have my family wind up being "the next Columbine" in the headlines. I have a long list of ornery relatives and have a fair degree of familiarity with physical traits with known psychological tie-ins, such as red hair being associated with high pain tolerance and also high risk tolerance.

So, yes, I believe that. Europe may not have been explicitly trying to get rid of genes per se, but they did essentially ship literally boatloads of undesirables to both America and Australia, countries which have some things in common in terms of having maverick social norms, more so than a lot of older cultures.

I can't prove it in a few comments in a public forum, but it isn't just some idea I dreamed up earlier this afternoon. It is rooted in many years of reading and discussing the connection between inborn traits and characteristics like tolerance for risk. I am not someone who likes risk. But my genetic disorder has made me unable to go along to get along, even though my default personality makes me wish I could. So, yes, I see clear connections between socially difficult behaviors and genes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thinking the unthinkable by pyre on Monday December 17, 2012 @12:23AM (#4930945)

Taking the US as an example, how many Americans share a lineage that can be traced back to the pilgrims? I would venture that the majority of the population comes from immigrants outside of the parameters that you provide. Does this higher incidence of 'maverick behaviour' come from a minority of the population?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thinking the unthinkable by Mz on Monday December 17, 2012 @09:00AM (#4932244)

You don't really need to be descended from a pilgrim. Most people who immigrate have a higher tolerance for risk than those who stay behind. Going to a strange land, with new rules, is very risky and challenging. Some people find ways to mitigate that risk, like marrying an American and then coming here. But it is still a huge life changing thing where you don't really know the outcome.

[ Parent | on HN ]