Are Genes Determinative?

Author’s Note: There is some bad language in this clip. To see how it ties into the overall topic of the piece, watch it to the end.

A fascinating conversation about genes and biological evolution was had recently on Late Night at Ratburger. I do not profess to have any real knowledge of this subject. I have exposed myself to it only on the fringes, meaning that I understand it as a means of explaining how it is that humans can have an innate fear of snakes or lions. I think the topic plays a relatively basic role in Charles Murray’s Bell Curve in that there seems to be some evidence that I.Q. can be linked to inheritable traits within the different races and ethnicities. (This hypothesis is what got Murray in trouble with his book.) Many who are much more conversant on this topic than I will tell you that there is more than just “something to this” idea, and on many levels I have to say that they make a strong case. I guess, if I had to identify one flaw in the topic, it would be that relegating the human experience to nothing more than an uncontrollable product of gene conditioning over the course of however many centuries appears to strip away one of the key elements of mankind: free will.

I suspect that many of the proponents of the bio-evolution theory will vehemently disagree with explanations of this or that, and say that I am wrong simply because, as I stated, I am rather ignorant of the topic. And that may be, but one cannot help but reach that conclusion when listening to how this topic is explained. For instance, one simple explanation for how a society can go from barbaric to civilized is that the genes of the barbaric adherents are killed off because of social mores adopted by the civilizing portion of the population. The theory seems to say that the barbarians’ genetically imposed tendency toward violence is killed off leaving only the lesser violent/peaceful genes in the population to reproduce. It is plausible enough, but would said theory cut the other way: that prior to this critical mass of civilized people being able to control that society such that it can weed out the violently disposed members, that, in fact, the violently disposed members would have already weeded out those more genetically inclined to become civilized?

As stated before, I am not a scientist. I have no compulsion to read about science in my free time or follow this or that scientific breakthrough. That is not to say that I do not read anything scientific, it is just not the topic of the books you will find on my nightstand next to my side of the bed. That said, I do understand one thing about science and this is that in most circumstances–I say most, not all–things do not happen without some sort of catalyst. A society cannot go from violent barbarism to peaceful and civilized without some outside force, whether that be a process over generations or overnight. Evolution does not work that way. My understanding is that there is some process between Point A and Point B. If you are inclined to believe that man evolved from the Great Apes, you must understand that this process did not go from The Ape to man as we see it today overnight.

However, that process did not just begin either–I do not think anyway. It would seem to me that evolution is closely tied to adaptation, which means that there must be something in the immediate environment causing the existing thing to need to change something in order to thrive in that new environment. So where it becomes more efficient for a creature to move up-right on two feet as opposed to having to use its arms along with its legs for propulsion, that change had to have been caused by something outside the genetic make-up of the creature, otherwise why change? If it ain’t broke, why try to fix it? Which brings me to why I have some issue with the notion of biological evolution (or whatever it is called). If the changes that occur are dependent on outside catalysts, then the decision must be made by the changing organism to adapt to that catalyst and thus free will.

In a physical sense, it would appear to be quite simple really. There is not much free will involved when you are talking about adapting to situations in order to procure food because the impulse here is the need to eat. So if it becomes easier for a creature to reach a fruit off of a tree branch by standing up-right and there is no easier way to either gather food or reach the fruit, the act of standing up-right no longer becomes about choice so much so as it just imprints genetically and the evolved creature no longer has to think about standing up-right. But when bio-evolution is used to explain things like emotions, I.Q., or societal norms, the theory, in my opinion, treads on shaky ground.

The example given on the LaRaMU call was that of the Germanic tribes. Barbaric? No doubt. Eventually civilized? Without going down the path of defining “civilized,” let’s just stipulate that, yes, the peoples of today who are descendants of the Germanic tribes are civilized. Was that the product of genetics? I do not know for sure, but I will pose this: the change from barbarism to civilized did not just happen. Something has to have been the cause of the change or else why change? I suppose one can come up with all sorts of examples of things “just changing,” but I think the fallacy there would be to use physical changes “just changing” as a substitute for emotional and intellectual changes “just changing.” Can physical objects simply change without some outside force? I suppose they can, and I am willing to accept such a notion when presented with examples–and I am sure the proponents will bring them. But I do not think that non-physical traits of mankind can be explained in the same way because I just do not believe that mankind works that way. The idea seems too fanciful and as much a product of faith as any religious explanation for what I am talking about.

Going back to the barbarism-to-civilized example, if genetic imprints exist making members of that society more inclined to violence, and one cannot change genetics–as it seems to have been stated on the phone call–then how did that society become civilized? Are genetics determinative? For some things, certainly physical attributes, sure, but for that more difficult level of humanity, the psyche? I just do not know and I lean toward no. People can be persuaded. People can be self-educated. Revelation comes to everyone and that revelation can have a profound impact on the future course of the person affected. Or is that just a product of the genetic make-up of the person being susceptible to revelatory events completely changing their lives? In my estimation, the desire to distill the human condition to some unchangeable, scientific explanation that locks mankind into an unbreakable cage denies mankind its humanity. What makes us human is our ability to use our physical as well as our psychological abilities in ways that no other creature can. And to explain away our ability to think, feel, love, hate, mourn, celebrate, etc., to being nothing more than a pre-programmed response based on genetics turns us into robots incapable of changing how we see and interact in the world around us.

Theologically, I fully accept the idea of predestination. As I understand it, predestination is simply God’s plan for each and everyone of us. But to me that makes sense because God–at least the Christian God–is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. He is the Alpha and the Omega. We are told that He knows the beginning and the end, and that is the important part to predestination in my view. For how can He be all those things and NOT know how things will end for each and everyone of us? It seems that science, in some respects, is claiming to have the same ability, that one can look at my family tree and make determinations about my political views, religious views, job choice, personal wants, who I seek out as friends, etc. I think ancestry is important for one to know because on some level it is important to know from where one comes. But it is not determinative. One of my relatives, a Scotsman, put down an insurrection against the British Crown in Ireland. It was that campaign that brought the McReynolds family to Ireland because he fell in love with the Irish landscape. But anyone who knows me would tell you that my ancestor’s adherence to an oppressive authority such as the British Crown against the Irish seems to have been genetically washed out of me. I have no love for the British Crown, tyrannical authorities, or putting down just revolts. Maybe that is putting a very simplistic spin on things, but each and everyone of us is an individual and, although our physical characteristics certainly are determined by genes, genetics cannot explain those non-physical traits that make us human.

6+
avataravataravataravataravataravatar

114 thoughts on “Are Genes Determinative?”

  1. Bob Thompson:
    I view the U. S. Constitution, properly interpreted, as not permitting law to be applied differently to individuals from different identified groupings regardless of any findings labeled disparate impact. No need to use those ‘statistical group genetic findings’ for government policy if we got that right.

    Yeah but that ship has sailed and it’s not coming back. The only hope is to use a different line of attack. Right now, the Left has moral cover from the blank slate: unequal outcomes must be the result of discrimination so we have to remedy that. It’s behind the mass incarceration narrative, disparate impact, Head Start, affirmative action, and countless others. If one can destroy the blank slate, they’ll be left naked: it will just be pure identity politics and competing tribes. Not that I’m optimistic that it will end well.

    Bob Thompson:
    Nothing prevents private sector organizations, using the statistical knowledge, from seeking solutions to the effects of disparate impact.

    Freedom of association died in the 1960s. So, no, private organizations are not at liberty to do whatever they want.

    Bob Thompson:
    Somehow, you think the exposure and delivery of the statistics will remedy that. Good luck with that convincing those ‘rabbits’

    No, it’s just the only hope. As long as they occupy the moral high ground of systemic racism and sexism, the Constitution be damned. You have exactly zero chance of convincing anyone of anything. All the Normies will continue to agree that these wrongs must be remedied. The best strategy is to show that the emperor has no clothes. For now, they are still made of the finest thread even though everyone recognizes, at some level, that the emperor is naked as a jaybird.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  2. Robert A. McReynolds:

    Henry Castaigne:
    @Robert A Reynolds

    According to an article in psychology today the ASVAB is quite similar to an I.Q. test.

    All military recruits must take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) to qualify for enlistment. The ASVAB is essentially an IQ test (correlation = 0.8). The ASVAB predicts SAT scores (correlation = .82). And it correlates with ACT scores (0.77).

    Furthermore, the military recruits tend to do a better on an ASVAB test. I can’t find that darn study of black soldiers. I’m not sure if it was during WWII or the Cold War.

    Well if this is the case IQ tests must be easy. As I said I did very well and I would not consider myself a genius.

    The ASVAB is a segmental IQ test which does not bother to aggregate the segments — not useful to the purpose.  You can blow away parts of the ASVAB and tank others, and the military doesn’t care about your total score — they put you where you did well.

    If you’re hiding the fact that you’re not an idiot — I’ll help.

    1+
    avatar
  3. Bob Thompson:
    There may be average IQ differences between ethnic groups but I have not seen any evidence that indicates that has any inherent significance that should influence social or political policy. The differences that affect lives within any cultural society are found within the individuals.

    The differences exist, and are slight, yet powerful in the aggregate, at the extremes.  So formulating policy to make things better which assumes that any ingrained difference is due to oppression will not make things better.  It will make them worse.

    Conversely, if you do not accept that group averages differ *naturally*, then you are susceptible to supporting bad policies which ignore human nature, and will insist on improving society no matter how may people get killed.

    5+
    avataravataravataravataravatar
  4. Haakon Dahl:

    Bob Thompson:
    There may be average IQ differences between ethnic groups but I have not seen any evidence that indicates that has any inherent significance that should influence social or political policy. The differences that affect lives within any cultural society are found within the individuals.

    The differences exist, and are slight, yet powerful in the aggregate, at the extremes.  So formulating policy to make things better which assumes that any ingrained difference is due to oppression will not make things better.  It will make them worse.

    Conversely, if you do not accept that group averages differ *naturally*, then you are susceptible to supporting bad policies which ignore human nature, and will insist on improving society no matter how may people get killed.

    Generalizing this point, any denial of reality always ends in tears. It’s not necessary to identify ahead of time exactly how. Lysenko probably seemed harmless enough until harvest time.

    2+
    avataravatar
  5. drlorentz:
    drlorentzsays: #53 2020-01-19 at 23:17 UTC  [Quote] Henry Castaigne: I am familiar with Sowell and his dismissal of I.Q. differences between races. It’s one of the very few things that I disagree with him about. Sowell is a blank-slater. It is most disappointing coming from a guy as smart as that. He is emotionally invested in the equality mythos. Diversity, Inclusion, Equity: DIE.

    Sowell is not a blank-slater. He believes that humanity has a nature and that its nature is far from being good. He may not be in the same camp as Charles Murray but he is in no way a blank-slater.

    1+
    avatar
  6. Henry Castaigne:
    Sowell is not a blank-slater. He believes that humanity has a nature and that its nature is far from being good. He may not be in the same camp as Charles Murray but he is in no way a blank-slater.

    Nobody is a pure blank-slater. I’m sure Sowell would agree that taller parents tend to have taller children and that being tall classes will not increase stature. Even your garden-variety leftist would agree, and that’s saying something. By your standard, blank-slaters do not exist. Furthermore, this has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of humanity in general; contrariwise, it’s about the differences among various human subgroups. That’s why it’s called human biodiversity (HBD).

    I don’t give a rat’s patootie “…that humanity has a nature.” If Sowell believes there is a universal human nature, bully for him but that’s irrelevant to the discussion. We’re talking about HBD here. And that’s where Sowell fails. If you want to be fastidious, and I see you do, then call Sowell an HBD-denier instead of a blank-slater.

    OK?

    0

  7. drlorentz:
    If you want to be fastidious, and I see you do, then call Sowell an HBD-denier instead of a blank-slater. OK?

    Yeah I’m comfortable with that terminology.

    Stephen Pinker is a big fan of Thomas Sowell by the way and Pinker has done alot of good by trying to dismantle the blank-slate ideology. As nitpicky as it is, I feel it is fair to acknowledge Thomas Sowell’s intellectual contributions to the debate even as we recognize he missed some things.

    2+
    avataravatar
  8. The following is what I recall from a past RAMU conversation: Please salt to taste as memory is notoriously faulty.

    Henry Castaigne and Dr. Lorenz: Yeah. It seems like the Bell Curve was right. I.Q. is a very important factor in a person’s personality and there seems to be a bell curve between different racial groups in terms of their relative I.Q. It is one of those things that should go without saying that many people of African descent are super smart and should be P.H.D.s and many Ashkenazi Jews aren’t so smart. We are talking about groups and not individuals.

    Mate De: What about Jesus and culture?

    Dr. Lorenz: Well, as an agnostic, I recognize that while I can’t believe in Christianity. But I know that in terms of civilization, I stand under a flag and that flag has a cross on it.

    Henry Castaigne: That’s Christianism. Douglass Murray is like that.

    Mate De: But what about the Jesus?

    Henry Castaigne: Jesus is fine. We are talking about genetics at the moment.

    Mate De: But about German tribes and Jesus.

    Henry Castaigne: Well ideas can surely spread much faster than genetic changes but we need to realize that genetic changes, including genetic changes in personality can happen quite quickly in groups. Dr. Lorenz keeps referring to the ten thousand year change which I think is about how humans changed genetically because of agriculture.

    Mate De: But what does that have to do with German tribes and Jesus.

    Henry Castaigne: Mate De I’ve already told you that we like the Jesus. We are talking about genetics here. Evolutionary psychology isn’t against Jesus.

     

    End of RAMU conversation.

     

    The conversation that followed on Ratburger as we have read wasn’t much better.

    Genetics is fifty percent or more of how tall or fat or intelligent you are. What’s more, other very important personality traits are also genetic. Different racial groups have different clusters of genes based on their environment.

    The easy example is disease. West African blacks have more resistance to malaria than other groups because West Africa is the worst place in the world for malaria. Many Europeans are resistant to the bubonic plague for similar reasons. The Native American people were genetically vulnerable to diseases because they’re genes were different. Color is also easy to understand because in any group, the closer you get to the border, the darker the people get.

    As different groups have different physical traits it is reasonable that different groups evolved different psychological traits. Swedes are probably more cooperative because cooperation was essential to survive the Winter. Confucian-Asians are probably more studious than average because getting a high test score made you rich and increased your ability to breed. West-Africans and Native-Americans probably have higher rates of crime because they are more geared towards succeeding in tribal warfare.

    The left believes that black-Americans are not doing as well as white-Americans because of racism. Alternatively, most conservatives and Thomas Sowell would say that racism is part of it but the biggest part is a culture that doesn’t uphold the family. Genetic evidence strongly suggest that a significant part of the troubles of black-Americans (and white-Americans who have lower I.Q.) are caused by genetics as well as culture. Recognizing this would help us make better policies and avoid making bad policies because understanding the problem is always necessary to make the right solution.

    For my money, having a super high I.Q. lets you rise above bad family circumstances and families can do a good job of helping out their lower I.Q. family members. But when you have low I.Q. and a weak family, then things get bad quickly

    So knowledge of human biodiversity is an important part of making a good society because it is an important part of what contributes to our criminal class and our poorer classes. Jesus is fine but I don’t understand what he has to do with genetics.

    1+
    avatar
  9. Wow Henry. Way to take my argument and make it sound completely idiotic. I don’t exactly remember the conversation going that way. ANYWAY.

    I guess my argument that, much of the change in humans has been  through the introduction of objectively moral standards, given to us by God (as in inalienable rights), didn’t compute. I used the example of groups such as the Germanic tribes, the Celtic tribes, the Vikings, etc… who engaged in barbaric practices but with the introduction of Christianity into that culture it changed those people’s behavior due to Christian moral values being introduced to them.

    I can also use the example of what we would considered “civilized” culture of the ancient world, such as the Greeks and the Roman, who engaged in abhorrent and evil behavior. Such as pedophilia, pederasty, violence and child sacrifice. Much of this was done in the name of their religion, and their entertainment. In the Greek temples, it was common practice for fornication to be done in the worship of the Gods and it was also done with children.

    Since we know that childhood trauma or trauma of any kind,  can effect the brain. Then, Consider the constant trauma these cultures were subjected to, and how that effected their brains.  The consider, perhaps the genetic changes to the brain, could be contributed to the change in cultural practices, where the trauma done to children was reduced significantly.

    0

  10. Henry Castaigne:
    So knowledge of human biodiversity is an important part of making a good society because it is an important part of what contributes to our criminal class and our poorer classes.

    Genetic evidence strongly suggest that a significant part of the troubles of black-Americans (and white-Americans who have lower I.Q.) are caused by genetics as well as culture.

    I agree with above. I also agreed in an earlier comment with regard to ‘the talk’ that John Derbyshire recommends for American parents to give to their children. That recommendation had a specific focus on a higher than average propensity of specific genetic traits of physical violence.

    I would like to suggest similar attention should be paid to the possible biodiversity demons lurking in those from European and Asian backgrounds. We have a rather large number of those of European background in our higher echelons of big government and big business. I use the adjective ‘big’ because this has much to do with making these activities attractive to those who are adept at lying and deception so they prosper in longterm positions where these traits are successfully employed. Corruption and crime is rampant among the people in these roles.

    I gave my children a different ‘talk’ about how to deal with and approach voting for those who are vying to rule much of our lives, whether they be in business or government. As we have moved so deeply into the modern information processing world, now we must deliver a new talk to our young regarding how to deal with the deceptions propagated by ‘hackers’ and in the social media offerings.

    This is just to point out that there are threats coming from many forms of biodiverse people and physical violence is probably one of the easiest to evade.

    2+
    avataravatar
  11. Mate De:
    perhaps the genetic changes to the brain, could be contributed to the change in cultural practices, where the trauma done to children was reduced significantly.

    That’s not how genes work. The neuropsychology of people who suffer from abuse is altered by the abuse (as it is altered by all sorts of stimuli that we barely understand). You are talking about environment and not genetics. When the barbarian peoples of Europe converted to Christianity and gave up human sacrifice etc., they had the same genetics. Possibly, over the centuries, genes that were less inclined to rape and murder were selected for because those behaviors were less useful under Christianity. (Knights were still pretty rapey though.)

    But Christianity changed people in a few generations. That isn’t enough time for the genetics of those populations to change. As has been discussed previously, fifty or over fifty percent of every trait you have is determined by your genetic makeup. Many of these traits contribute to, superstition, poverty and criminality so they are worth investigating in order to alleviate human suffering.

    The societal blueprints may have changed from pagan shrines to Churches but the basic building blocks of humanity were the same in those societies. It is the building blocks that we are discussing.

    When we talk about genetics you talk past the debate regarding genetics and talk about the environment factor of religion which isn’t related to genetics.

    No one disagrees with your argument about the importance of religion (except for the mistaken nature of how trauma affects genes). We aren’t having the same conversation. That’s why I requested that you write down my argument because it seems like you haven’t been responding to what we have been discussing. Your objections seem like a non-sequitur.

    0

  12. Henry Castaigne:
    No one disagrees with your argument about the importance of religion

    There are some ways in which religion might influence genetics, especially over periods measured in centuries or millennia.  For example, a religion which selects those inclined to literacy, learning, and intellectual pursuits into a celibate clergy is removing some of the most intelligent from the gene pool.  Conversely, a religion with the same qualifications for clergy that rewards them materially and encourages large families is breeding for intelligence.

    A religion which prescribes the death penalty for many crimes will both select for intelligence (since criminals are usually among the less intelligent in a population) and “domesticate” the population by selecting out those prone to violence.  A religion which does not do this will not perform such selection.

    2+
    avataravatar
  13. Henry Castaigne:

    drlorentz:
    If you want to be fastidious, and I see you do, then call Sowell an HBD-denier instead of a blank-slater. OK?

    Yeah I’m comfortable with that terminology.

    Stephen Pinker is a big fan of Thomas Sowell by the way and Pinker has done alot of good by trying to dismantle the blank-slate ideology. As nitpicky as it is, I feel it is fair to acknowledge Thomas Sowell’s intellectual contributions to the debate even as we recognize he missed some things.

    Yeah, the point remains that Sowell’s humanity has a nature position is irrelevant to the topic at hand. He denies group difference, which is what this thread is all about. What’s worse, that denial leaves him with environment-only solutions. Delusional.

    1+
    avatar
  14. I think we are going to beat our heads against a wall. This is why I wanted you to rephrase your argument in the simplest terms possible,  because I don’t exactly know what your argument is. Perhaps, that the problems with certain groups of people who have say, high crime rates can be attributed to either a genetic component or IQ.

    If that is your argument, which I don’t know if it is or not, I disagree. Also, if that is your argument what are the practical uses for this information? If there is a genetic component to violence say, how to then reduce violence within that group.

    0

  15. Bob Thompson:
    I gave my children a different ‘talk’ about how to deal with and approach voting for those who are vying to rule much of our lives, whether they be in business or government. As we have moved so deeply into the modern information processing world, now we must deliver a new talk to our young regarding how to deal with the deceptions propagated by ‘hackers’ and in the social media offerings.

    This is just to point out that there are threats coming from many forms of biodiverse people and physical violence is probably one of the easiest to evade.

    Humans are genetically inclined to socialism.

    Big nations are a new thing. They are only about six thousand years old. For 190,000 yearsHomo Sapiens, lived in bands of 10-50 people and those bands were part of a larger tribe. The first nations were city states that were comparatively small compared to the Metropolises we have today. The yearning for family and community was satisfied with this arrangement.

    1+
    avatar
  16. Henry Castaigne:
    As has been discussed previously, fifty or over fifty percent of every trait you have is determined by your genetic makeup.

    I am having trouble accepting this kind of characterization. I think of traits as inborn, and therefore genetic, whether they be in some absolute immutable form or simply a tendency. The rational capability that enables control of tendencies is itself a trait. I take all traits to be genetic. Behaviors, good or bad, that are not traits are learned and function influenced by rational capability and inborn traits. If IQ is high and violent tendency is low we get a different result distribution than when IQ is low and violent tendency is high.

    1+
    avatar
  17. drlorentz:
    What’s worse, that denial leaves him with environment-only solutions. Delusional.

    Firstly, he would say that he believes in trade-offs and not solutions. Secondly, his environmental solutions are strong families and developing skills that people will pay for.

    I want sex-robots and genetic engineering on top of Sowell’s recommendations but he starts with a good foundation.

    0

  18. Henry Castaigne:
    The following is what I recall from a past RAMU conversation: Please salt to taste as memory is notoriously faulty.

    Henry Castaigne and Dr. Lorenz: Yeah. It seems like the Bell Curve was right. I.Q. is a very important factor in a person’s personality and there seems to be a bell curve between different racial groups in terms of their relative I.Q. It is one of those things that should go without saying that many people of African descent are super smart and should be P.H.D.s and many Ashkenazi Jews aren’t so smart. We are talking about groups and not individuals.

    Mate De: What about Jesus and culture?

    Dr. Lorenz: Well, as an agnostic, I recognize that while I can’t believe in Christianity. But I know that in terms of civilization, I stand under a flag and that flag has a cross on it.

    Henry Castaigne: That’s Christianism. Douglass Murray is like that.

    Mate De: But what about the Jesus?

    Henry Castaigne: Jesus is fine. We are talking about genetics at the moment.

    Mate De: But about German tribes and Jesus.

    Henry Castaigne: Well ideas can surely spread much faster than genetic changes but we need to realize that genetic changes, including genetic changes in personality can happen quite quickly in groups. Dr. Lorenz keeps referring to the ten thousand year change which I think is about how humans changed genetically because of agriculture.

    Mate De: But what does that have to do with German tribes and Jesus.

    Henry Castaigne: Mate De I’ve already told you that we like the Jesus. We are talking about genetics here. Evolutionary psychology isn’t against Jesus.

     

    End of RAMU conversation.

    You are confusing me with Haakon. For starters, I would never say “as an agnostic.” That sentence was uttered by him, not me.

    As for the rest of it, who knows if it’s any more accurate. Best to stick to the written word.

    0

  19. Bob Thompson:
    If IQ is high and violent tendency is low we get a different result distribution than when IQ is low and violent tendency is high.

    No disagreement there. But keep in mind that people with the genes for high I.Q. can be adversely affected by bad nutrition, neglect and a culture that disdains education and learning. I.Q. is mostly genetic though.

    0

  20. Henry Castaigne:
    his environmental solutions are strong families and developing skills that people will pay for.

    Exactly. We agree. His proposed solutions either have zero empirical basis or have been proven to be failures, having been implemented in the Great Society. More job training, more Head Start!

    Oh, I know, I know. They weren’t tried the right way. You know, like with communism: it’s never been tried the right way.

    0

  21. Henry Castaigne:
    Humans are genetically inclined to socialism.

     True. The instinct is there and works well in small groups. The attempt to extend the working instinctual socialism to millions is a mistake occurring in the rational process.

    0

  22. drlorentz:
    drlorentzsays: #98 2020-01-22 at 19:27 UTC  [Quote] Henry Castaigne: his environmental solutions are strong families and developing skills that people will pay for.

    Exactly. We agree. His proposed solutions either have zero empirical basis or have been proven to be failures, having been implemented in the Great Society.

    More job training, more Head Start! Oh, I know, I know. They weren’t tried the right way. You know, like with communism: it’s never been tried the right way.

    When has he ever endorsed head start or more government-funded job training? Furthermore, there is a strong empirical basis that intact nuclear families improve human outcomes. 

    1+
    avatar

Leave a Reply