No.77746
There is a lot of confusion because some people believe that Free Will is denied if you accept everything you are is 100% genetic. That is false. Free Will is a concept for philosophy to struggle with. I am here to show you that the choices you make are all derived from a set of desires all of which are genetic. How well you go through with your choices and how well you peform in various actions trying to get to your goals; all genetic. Your beliefs even are genetic. The brains of humans follow geographical patterns like everything else. The behavior typical of a German is going to be more common in Bavaria than in Peloponnese. Some Nations of people are more impulsive, others are more methodical. Every axis and type of trait is based on genes and is more or less common along with related types of behaviors in specific groups of people. When immigrants come, some can pretend to believe what the natives believe, but as the immigration rate rises, the true beliefs of even the old immigrants become more overt. They do not think like the natives. They do not feel like the natives. They do not dream like the natives. This is because the brain structure and function is genetic. And so many of their genes are different.
How similar are you to the average chimp? (over 98.8% of average human DNA is similar to the average chimp)
How about a mouse? (~92% of average human DNA is similar to a mouse)
You have the senses you have of the world because of your genes; Eyes, ears, etc.
Your genes determine how receptive you are to ideas from other people, or how well you mimick behavior, or whether you are introspective instead of impulsive.
An african brought into Germany will never be a German. If all of Rothschilds money was spent to educate one family of Africans to make them as Germany as possible, their kids would still not be German. So long as they married other Africans, they would not become German, ever.
Whether or not particular thoughts seem more acceptable to you is based on your brain structure and the learned ideas you've accumulated. You've accumulated learned ideas based on your experiences. You could not have visual experiences if you have never seen. You could not have abstract thoughts if you can not understand them. The human brain is complex. An organism without that human brain capacity could not have human thoughts and understandings. Could you imagine a bat or Suncus etruscus to have philosophical theories?
Regulation of Gene expression normally happens in all of an organisms tissues on a continuous basis. This means that the environment is always a factor in how genes are expressed. Why does regulation happen? Because the organism contains mechanisms that sense various parameters. How does an organism regulate the genetic expression? Turning genes on, partially on, or off (simplified). That cells respond to the environment and adjust genetic expression is not proof that something or anything is not 100% genetic. Those mechanisms of sensing, responding, adjusting, and readjusting are genetic as well. A cell can not have a receptor that was not coded in the genome. A tissue can not have a function it lacks the mechanisms to do.
A country that does not represent any particular nation or nation(s) will be in turmoil until it is destroyed or remade. The struggle between groups of people exists even in apparent times of peace.
No.77761
>>77746
Is ethno-capitalism a thing?
No.77764
>>77761
no but etho-capital is
No.77768
>>77746
>Genetics is literally all that matters and individual experience, environment, and chance don't factor into anything
Then how is it possible for one identical twin to be shot and killed but not the other?
No.77782
no you retard
behavior is only 50% or less inherited
learn psychology you drooling moron
No.77785
>come check out what /liberty/ is all about
>see this thread
Yeah I'm out
No.77786
>>77782
Genetic difference at the population level averages out to absolute ranking. Even a 1% difference has extreme effects.
No.77791
>>77785
>what /liberty/ is all about
It's a cool place
No.77829
>>77791
So I did end up staying for a bit and
>lolbergs and commies calling eachother nazis
Seems like everyone here is calling everyone a commie. I should fit right in!
No.77860
>>77782
Denial of reality does not make one wise.
No.77901
>>77746
>I am here to show you that the choices you make are all derived from a set of desires all of which are genetic.
But you didn't show anything. You presented your thesis, but no proof of it. Nor did you disprove any opposing viewpoint, or show how your theory applies to difficult cases. For example, the differences between Catholic and Protestant nations. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn has shown that Catholic German states didn't vote for the Nazis like the Protestant states did. How do you explain that? Do the same genes that determine whether Nazi propaganda appeals to you also determine whether you're a Catholic or a Protestant? Then show us how.
Or, how come ideological explanations for social phenomena work so well? That Muslims are immune to secularism can be easily explained by the history of Islam, in which a distinction between worldly and spiritual things was never drawn. Christianity, which frequently invokes this distinction and always has, was receptible to secularism. Likewise, how come that the rise of science can be explained by the effect that the Christian fatih had on the thinking of "natural philosophers"? An animist won't consider that the world functions according to objective and immutable laws, but someone who believes in a single, perfect, unchangeable god might. Is there an underlying genetic cause, and if so, which one is it?
Yet another problem are studies of genetically identical twins. When both are raised in the same household, their criminal history correlates more than when they are raised in different households.
>When immigrants come, some can pretend to believe what the natives believe, but as the immigration rate rises, the true beliefs of even the old immigrants become more overt. They do not think like the natives. They do not feel like the natives. They do not dream like the natives. This is because the brain structure and function is genetic. And so many of their genes are different.
Here, you just jump on this explanation. You don't even look at possible different explanations, and some of them are quite obvious, for example that the immigrants simply never stopped believing what they believed before, or were raised in a different environment.
No idea why you bring up brain structure either. This tells us nothing, as brain structure is not just genetically determined.
>>77768
Also this.
No.77917
>>77901
Genetics = Firmware
Psychology = Software
tbh
No.77919
>>77917
>Genetics = Firmware
No, Genetics = Hardware
Parenting (dependent of genetics of parent thus indirectly on yours) = Firmware
Software is always limited by the underlying hardware.
No.77933
>>77919
When do we overclock humans?
No.77934
>>77919
>>77933
Also this means you can be a good human being despite having bad hardware but we have shit programmers.
No.77949
>>77901
Adhering to beliefs that you recognize of your ingroup is genetic. How receptive your in group is to a particular belief type is genetic.
You seem to deny humans are social creatures altogether, care to prove that?
>Brain structure is not just genetically determined.
Every part of your body is built from your genes. You don't get to build new eyes because you enjoy looking at art. Your parents looking at lots of colourful art won't make you able to see better spectrum of colors. As for behavior being relative to your upbringing, that does not in any way contradict genes. In fact your genes are structured in a way to relate to the environment. By regulating genetic mechanisms, the organism adapts to the situation it is found in.
No.77972
>>77949
>Adhering to beliefs that you recognize of your ingroup is genetic. How receptive your in group is to a particular belief type is genetic. You seem to deny humans are social creatures altogether, care to prove that?
Your assertions are self-contradictory.
No.77975
over 98.8% of average human DNA is similar to the average chimp
BECAUSE WE'RE APES YOU FUCK!!!!
No.77976
~92% of average human DNA is similar to a mouse
BECAUSE WE'RE ANIMALS YOU FUCK!!!!!!!!!!
No.77977
DO YOU SERIOUSLY NOT UNDERSTAND THATB HOMO SAPIEN SAPIENS ARE ANIMALS AND GREATER APES YOU STUPID PIECE OF SHIT?!?!? FUCK PHILOSOPHY, DO YOU NOT EVEN REGISTER BASIC EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY?!?!?
No.77992
>>77949
>As for behavior being relative to your upbringing, that does not in any way contradict genes. In fact your genes are structured in a way to relate to the environment. By regulating genetic mechanisms, the organism adapts to the situation it is found in.
See epigenetics.
No.78031
>>77992
Epigenetics are regulation mechanisms of your genes that are heritable but not directly modifying the genes themselves.
You had something to contribute?
No.78032
>>77976
>>77975
Just goes to show how big the difference is with just small differences in genetics. Wolves and Chihuahua are the same species after all.
No.78097
>>78031
What if you take an individual from their parents and adapt them to a different environment?
No.78190
>>78097
>what if if if if
fuck off
No.78206
>>78190
Twin studies faggot.
No.78211
>>78097
Then they will best adapt to that environment based on how they are capable. Their capabilities are derived from their genes.
No.78635
No.78673
No.78774
>>77975
>>77976
>>78032
Imagine being this retarded. We are so similar because we share genes, but for other species they are ordered very differently. I hear/read retards use this misconception within humans, stating that other races are 1% different in genes therefore they are as different to us as chimps. Read a book.
No.78791
>>78717
Reminder that Levantines and Mediterraneans created the modern world, and Northern Europeans have never done anything but shit everything up and claim credit for others' hard work.
No.78802
>>78774
>but for other species they are ordered very differently
Yes because none of the rules apply to humans. Humans are 99.5% the same DNA wise, but that half a percent makes large clear differences. You can just fucking look at people and tell we are different. Skin color is the obvious one, but we have height, hair type, hair color, face shape, skull shape, dental patterns, and a billion other things that are trivially measurable. You just don't recognize the obvious differences that do exist as real differences.
No.78803
>>78791
This is a mostly fair statement. Just remember that there has been a lot of migration since then. The people that used to live in the center of civilization don't live there anymore. Got BTFO.
No.78807
>>78803
I blame the Sea Peoples
t./his/ lurker
No.78885
>>77746
wow i never knew that my surgery was 100% genetic thanks dude
No.78940
>>78885
Is surgery something that just happened?
How do you make choices, do you use your brain?
No.78942
you fucking retard, DNA is but a tiny visible spectrum of acids that are shot out faster than the speed of light electromagnetically, from another dimension. Life is one giant illusion, DNA is not the pinnacle of existence. Try learning a real science like physics dumbass.
No.78945
>>78942
You sound metaphysical.
No.79853
>>77746
>everything is genes
>except the free will
Wew lad. Not even Marx contradicted himself that fast.
>>77786
Humans and apes are only 2% different in DNA, so that's kind of obvious.
No.79872
>>77746
OP, you have made so many ridiculous assertions one can barely follow your thought process. Allow me to clarify, for the benefit of yourself and the people of this board, where racialism fails.
1) We know that groups of humans, separated by thousands of miles and hundreds of generations, have evolved in a somewhat divergent manner to form an array of genetically distinct populations. However,
>"The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries. Furthermore, the complexities of human history make it difficult to determine the position of certain groups in classifications. Multiplying subcategories cannot correct the inadequacies of these classifications" (American Association of Physical Anthropologists)
Making racial distinctions is not useful; we must, instead, use genetic distinctions. But once you do you realise that…
2) There is greater genetic variability between two individuals of the same race than there is between races.
>"Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them." (American Anthtopological society)
3) The assertion that variations in behaviour between human populations can be entirely chalked up to genetic difference fails to consider that the environment (geography and climate) are what determine genes in the first place, and within a single generation will greatly alter genetic expression. You tried to arrive at a first cause and failed. The first cause is environment, which determines genes in the long term and gene expression in the short term.
4) The assertion that humans not only have the tendency to hold beliefs given genetically determined differences in psychological traits (e.g. higher degree of openness), but that beliefs themselves are genetically determined is patently stupid. A belief is a mental meme, and one individual cannot spontaneously come to believe in it unless they are exposed to it or a social environment where the precursors of that meme already exist.
5) Your statement
>A country that does not represent any particular nation or nation(s) will be in turmoil until it is destroyed or remade.
does not even follow from the malformed, incoherent mess that was your argument.
In short: races aren't useful genetic categories, genes themselves do not directly cause belief, there is no indication that racial diversity is an issue for individuals in a society unless coupled with an unhealthy obsession over said diversity.
No.79876
>>79872
Oh were you discussing this study?
It's unfortunate the data in the study fully disprove the opinions of you, those funding the study, or the hopes of the researchers themselves (summarized at the conclusion, as in hopeful for future studies but not supported by current study).
No.79877
>>77746
the ubermensch has free will; only aryans have this potential thus the potential for free will lies in the aryan race, pretty simple huh.
No.79889
>>79876
>Oh were you discussing this study?
No, I was not discussing this study. After searching for the text in question I found this quote, which was literally the first phrase of the abstract:
>The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. Yet sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations.
Another quote:
>DISCUSSIONS of genetic differences between major human populations have long been dominated by two facts: (a) Such differences account for only a small fraction of variance in allele frequencies, but nonetheless (b) multilocus statistics assign most individuals to the correct population. This is widely understood to reflect the increased discriminatory power of multilocus statistics. Yet Bamshad et al. (2004) showed, using multilocus statistics and nearly 400 polymorphic loci, that (c) pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population.
It seems like a /pol/yp was once again found purposefully misrepresenting scientific studies and failing to understand statistics and science. Colour me unsurprised.
No.79890
>>79889
you believe that some germans are genetically closer to some niggers than they are from each other?
No.79892
>>79889
sometimes nogs have a kid that looks like an aryan and sometimes aryans have kids that looks like a nog? have you ever seen such a thing?
No.79893
>>79890
>>79892
>When confronted by evidence of its own ignorance, the /pol/yp retreats into the familiar territory of racial insults
No.79894
>>79892
Are you dense? I never said anything like that. Here, I'll explain:
Take 2 random guys from Sudan. Measure the differences between their DNAs. Now take one guy from Sudan and one guy from Austria. Measure the differences between their DNAs. Chances are, the differences between the guy from Sudan and the guy from Austria will be greater than the differences between the 2 guys from Sudan.
You still with me? Ok, now take a bunch of people from Sudan and a bunch of people from Austria. Find a specific gene they almost all of the guys from Sudan have that almost none of the people from Austria have. Now do that for a bunch of genes. Now you can tell if the people from your first experiment are from Sudan or from Austria even though the guys from Sudan might've been less similar to one another than the guy from Austria was to the guy from Sudan
Got it now?
No.79920
>>79889
>purposefully misrepresenting scientific studies and failing to understand statistics and science. Colour me unsurprised.
Except even while you brazenly lie, the study and data are right there.
Instead of just reading the abstract maybe try reading the whole study, especially the methods and results?
If that is too much to read and stay focused at one time, try doing it over several days. The data is not confusing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
BTW since you quoted it, do you know what "Yet sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations." means?
No spoiler, it means, like shown in the study, when thousands of genetic loci are used instead of 100 or so, the chances of individuals being misclassified base on geographical populations are near zero. Even with only 100 loci used the chances of "pairs" of individuals to be dissimilar to people from their own geographic locations is only 20% (meaning they are 80% more likely to be simialr to their locals than people from distant places). That literally disproves "pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population".
Learn to be literate, friend.
No.79921
>>79894
> the guys from Sudan might've been less similar to one another than the guy from Austria was to the guy from Sudan
>
>Got it now?
Except that is wrong. Even with only 10 loci sampled, the chances of the guy from sudan to be more similar to the guy from austria than to his local sudanese is about 33% from a random sampling.
That's kinda low, friend.
No.79922
>>79876
>How can the observations of accurate classifiability be reconciled with high between-population similarities among individuals? Classification methods typically make use of aggregate properties of populations, not just properties of individuals or even of pairs of individuals. For instance, the centroid classification method computes the distances between individuals and population centroids and then clusters individuals around the nearest centroid. The population trait method relies on information about the frequencies of each allele in each population to compute individual trait values and on the means and variances of the trait distributions to classify individuals. The Structure classification algorithm (Pritchard et al. 2000) also relies on aggregate properties of populations, such as Hardy–Weinberg and linkage equilibrium. In contrast, the pairwise distances used to compute the dissimilarity fraction make no use of population-level information and are strongly affected by the high level of within-groups variation typical of human populations. This accounts for the difference in behavior between the dissimilarity fraction and the classification results.
No.79923
>>79921
That would be really fucking high given that 50% means no relationship whatsoever between genes and population origin, particularly since the op was very specific about races being so genetically distinct they cannot live in the same society. Even 10% for high loci numbers indicates massive amounts of overlap in gene distributions. Think about it anon:
>One in 10 times the Sudanese and the Austrian will be closer to each other than the two Sudanese.
is not compatible with
>No Sudanese can live in Austria without causing conflict
and that's even before trying to prove that variability in beliefs is almost entirely determined by genetics, which you didn't even try to do.
No.79924
>>79920
Jesus Christ, how can so much magnificent idiocy come from so humble a cretin?
>No spoiler, it means, like shown in the study, when thousands of genetic loci are used instead of 100 or so, the chances of individuals being misclassified base on geographical populations are near zero.
yes
>That literally disproves "pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population".
no
Re-read >>79894 and see if you understand it this time. Or maybe take a stats 101 course online. IDK, man just do something. You cannot continue to live this way, or you're gonna get scammed hard some day by a bank that knows more maths than you do.
No.79929
>>79923
>>One in 10 times the Sudanese and the Austrian will be closer to each other than the two Sudanese.
>is not compatible with
>>No Sudanese can live in Austria without causing conflict
Could you quote where you are getting that statement from, it seems you invented it. You see if I say dogs and cats can't live together, you can't properly paraphrase me if you claim I said not a single cat or dog can ever live together.
Comprende?
>and that's even before trying to prove that variability in beliefs is almost entirely determined by genetics, which you didn't even try to do.
It's been proven from the OP.
You've made no claim to the contrary.
No.79930
>>79924
The only way "often more similar" is true is if often actually means sometimes, in which case you need to grab your thesaurus and learn that it does not and the statement is actually untrue.
No.79949
>>79929
>A country that does not represent any particular nation or nation(s) will be in turmoil until it is destroyed or remade. The struggle between groups of people exists even in apparent times of peace
implies
>No Sudanese can live in Austria without causing conflict
I mean isn't that the whole fucking point of ethnonationalism?
>>and that's even before trying to prove that variability in beliefs is almost entirely determined by genetics, which you didn't even try to do.
>It's been proven from the OP.
No it hasn't. It was asserted by the OP. No proof was provided. You don't prove something by stating it as fact.
>>79930
conclusion of the study
>The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.
No.79951
>>79949
>conclusion of the study
Did you understand it?
No.79952
>>79949
>implies
no, it doesn't
>>No Sudanese can live in Austria without causing conflict
>
>I mean isn't that the whole fucking point of ethnonationalism?
is it?
No.80181
>>80109
ok lets say races exist
so what?
No.80196
>>80181
>…Your beliefs even are genetic. The brains of humans follow geographical patterns like everything else. The behavior typical of a German is going to be more common in Bavaria than in Peloponnese…
No.80233
>>80196
minds are more plastic than brains
there is no typical german behavior, what does it even mean- drinking bear and driving mercedes/volkswagen/audi?
No.80236
>>80233
>there is no typical german behavior, what does it even mean- drinking bear and driving mercedes/volkswagen/audi?
Walk around in Germany then in Zimbabwe and report back. For further studies take a trip through rural China.
No.80237
>>80236
you are talking about culture not about biology
No.80238
>>80237
>culture has nothing to do with biology
thats weird
are you sure?
No.80307
>>80238
i did not say that
No.80328
>>80307
and the poster above you didnt say what you wrote in the earlier post
whats your point?
No.80345
>Your beliefs even are genetic.
Threads not worth reading. Has anyone pointed out that this is self-defeating yet? Basically any strong naturalist position undercuts itself totally once it tries to interact with the cognition of the theorists themselves.
I'll believe things because they are rationally compelling and/or probably true. You can believe things for whatever 'reason' you like. You'll also be treated like a fucking idiot, but that's not my problem.
No.80356
>>80345
>I'll believe things because they are rationally compelling and/or probably true.
Your brain is an efficient machine.
No.80368
>I am here to show you that the choices you make are all derived from a set of desires all of which are genetic.
Nope, this is wrong. Even the most ardent consciousness-isn't-real-and-reality-is-100%-deterministic philosopher will tell you this is wrong. Why? When you consume food, breathe air, or generally interact with most objects, it is literally altering the matter of which you are composed. This is why your body is constantly regulating the presence of different chemicals throughout itself, both on the micro and macro scales. Ergo, you are in fact storing state by everyday natural metabolic processes, and so the claim "you are exclusively your genetics" is false. So unless you can disprove basic biology, I am unconvinced.
No.80381
>>80368
But nobody said "you are exclusively your genetics". So sure that statement is false. The very word "exclusively" is not mentioned in any way or related concept except in your post.
Why are you denying the true statements said instead? You are creating a textbook strawman argument. Why is reality making you suffer so hard that you are in denial?
No.80382
>>80328
culture is based on biology but it is much more plastic u moron
No.80390
>>80382
Great arguments man, got any other name calling to add or is your elementary class homework keeping you busy?
No.80446
>>80381
Read the title of the thread, it is literally
>Everything you are is 100% genetic
No.80447
>>80381
Also, even without the title, the quote contains,
"the choices you make are all derived from a set of desires all of which are genetic".
So yes, the claim _is_ that your behavior is deterministically calculated from your genetics. Of course, the OP babbles on about gene expression, but then he gives this statement
>That cells respond to the environment and adjust genetic expression is not proof that something or anything is not 100% genetic.
No.80462
>>79877
>implying every Aryan is an Ubermensch
You do know Nietzsche was against German nationalism and racism, right?
No.80522
>>80462
because he was contrarian
No.80541
>absolute genetic determinism
No.80542
>A country that does not represent any particular nation or nation(s) will be in turmoil until it is destroyed or remade.
No.80709
>>80542
this is how /pol/acks look like
No.81371
>>80447
You're in denial of facts. You've neither presented facts nor argument to attempt to reply. You only keep making claims, and then fail to support them.
No.81379
>>81371
no facts have been posted here
No.81552
>>81371
You're incredibly shit at making witty replies. At least your thread was funny.
No.81847
>>77746
>every dish is 100% ingredients
>every dish is 100% preparation
No you fucking nigger that's not how you phrase it. Nature and nurture are not two complements and there is no sliding scale between them. Nothing is 34% nature and 66% nurture for example. The two are orthogonal. They occur simultaneously.
It goes like this: every living thing is an expression of its genome within its environment. Different environment – different expression – different kind of thing.
Environments affect different factors. A white kid grown up in a black neighborhood will still have the behavioral traits and intellectual performance of a white, but may act like a wigger. A white kid from a white neighborhood, whose mum drank herself to shit while pregnant will act white but may be developmentally retarded. And so forth.
Plus language. Language develops in environment, giving emphasis to things important there (i.e 50 eskimo words for snow). This bleeds on into sentence structure, word formation and finally – into words describing abstract concepts, giving them different emphasis and tone. This influences the modes of thinking of people. It's not as drastic as Orwell thought but it is important. No complex idea can be perfectly translated with all of the tones, emotional implications and so forth, to another language. This also influences culture, which influences mate selection, which creates selective pressures on the genetic development of a population. It kind of loops around.
Also everyone who unironically believes "biological/genetic determinism" is a valid term and not a retarded meme for scientifically illiterate morons is a wankstain, a spiritual dualist, and probably a communist transvestite as well.
Textbooks for breakfast, not Bill Nye and gender theory, mkay
Praise Darwin
No.81849
>>81847
>still bumping this shit thread
Can we fucking let it die already?