What are the connections between genetics, technology, environments, and physiology? El gato malo considers such connections at boriquagato.substack.com:
technology affects genes and genes affect technology
physiognomy, once a darling of victorian natural philosophers, is one of those disciplines that got discredited but probably shouldn’t have been, at least not conceptually.
it, along with genes, gene driven outcomes, and genetic population variance in traits and outcomes are among the most suppressed topics in academia, media, and social media.
even mention them on twitter and you get your reach throttled severely.
do so in a university and unless you have the most secure of tenure, they will drop a building on your head.
many like to denounce it as pseudoscience.
this seems odd to me as, at core, it’s not like this is an exotic or even debatable idea. such notions were once common canon, they were just taken too far and in some poor directions owing to lack of rigor but the simple fact is that it’s patently obvious that genes affect all manner of characteristics and behaviors in animals (including humans).
because these traits are heritable, changes in environment serve as selectors where some traits prove advantageous to certain populations at certain times and are therefore conserved and spread through mating fitness outcomes.
My phrenology was cromagnon anti-social.
Remember fake it till you make it?
That should be the new national anthem of this steaming fourth world turd.
Went to Palookaville and there were a couple of people speaking English (!) I couldn’t believe it.
Stopped by Haji’s 7-11 and the front windows and door were blasted out by the gunfire from the other night with John Law squadron pulling over everybody on US HWY.
Zimbabwemar? Si se puede!
I am a fan of Catturd and have subscribed to his purring. However, I would caution him on the destination, if he allows himself to reach it, he will reach. While I do not disagree with a number of his observations/claims, the failure to maintain proper context is what discredited this field of study in the first place!
What context to which I refer? The fact that volition – irrespective of genetic make-up, irrespective of one’s environmental “experiences,” will be claimed to “trump” volition. In turn, that will logically “trump” the idea of moral responsibility.
If such academy of “study” and “research” reaches such a point, wherein genetics replaces volition as “determining” the course of one’s life – or aspects of it, then logically, it will also have determined the results of the studies or research as well!
After all, the people performing this “science” could not have concluded their “findings” otherwise, because of their genetic and environmental “experience(s).