Religion is genetic now?

[Malintent]

I was at a bar with some friends and we were talking about something a doctor said to one of us in response to the question of why breast cancer rates are so high in our geographical region. Their doctor said it was because of the higher than average density of Jewish people skewing the statistics. According to the doctor, Jewish people have a higher instance of cancer markers in their DNA than other groups.

Overhearing us, a man at the bar jumped into the conversation. He politely interjected that he recently had an Ancestry DNA test done, and he was shocked that part of his pie chart said, "Jewish". He said that when he saw that he was outraged that this company (Ancestry) has declared a Religion as part of his DNA. He was Irish Catholic (praise Jesus - his words) and was offended they called him part Jewish.

I am of the opinion he was anti-Semitic and mistook what he heard of our conversation as being anti-Semitic, referring to the Jewish people as having "bad DNA" (not what we said, but what he took us to be saying). He took the opportunity to espouse his feelings of revulsion being associated with that people.

I explained to him that "Jewish" is both a religion and also a reference to the Semites from the Middle-East... That his ancestors must have migrated out of that region, is all.

He just repeated that he was surprised that "Jewish" is a DNA marker. How many times can you explain something to someone with an agenda that does not want to understand what it really means?

Two questions for ya'll...

1) Does this make sense? Was my explanation accurate? "Jewish" is both a religion, as well as a genetic path.
2) Have you ever been approached by someone who mistook what you were talking about and thought you were on "their side", but in fact were on the opposite "side" of the "argument"?

This happens to me when I talk about religion in public... my knowledge is mistaken as devotion, and then the conversation gets awkward, like immediately.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Here is an explanation of Jewish ancestry from Ancestry.com itself. It matches what I know, and what you were saying. Your interlocutor was basically mixing the definitions for Jewish (ancestry) and Jewish (religion). I have been in similar circumstances myself, and those conversations can become weird very quickly, as I'm not one to let misinformation stand, especially if I was the one misunderstood.

 

[Keith&Co.]

1) Does this make sense? Was my explanation accurate? "Jewish" is both a religion, as well as a genetic path.

Well, in the Babble, it's a race, a religion, a nationality, all used pretty interchangeably. Your new friend probably also considers it a curse, an agenda, and a language...

2) Have you ever been approached by someone who mistook what you were talking about and thought you were on "their side", but in fact were on the opposite "side" of the "argument"?

OOOH, yeah.
And I must admit, I usually push it as long as I can get them to go, just for the look on their face when the facts are revealed...

 

[Malintent]

in the Babble, it's a race, a religion, a nationality, all used pretty interchangeably. Your new friend probably also considers it a curse, an agenda, and a language...

Good point. Very true. I lol'ed at "it's a language", and such.

Here is an explanation of Jewish ancestry from Ancestry.com itself...

lol, what a dumbass that guy was... willfully dumbassian. Good to know that Ancestry has good explanations of their service and product.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Have you ever been approached by someone who mistook what you were talking about and thought you were on "their side", but in fact were on the opposite "side" of the "argument"?

Yes. But not truthfully approached. I've been sucker punched if you will by a known adversary making nice and then springing their trap. It has always been of a religious nature and twice by the same person.

I think "willfully dumbassian" is pretty accurate.

 

[Malintent]

The "trap". I think I know what you mean. Is that like when a street preacher asks you, "Have you ever told a lie"? I respond to that attempted entrapment with, "Have you ever been wrong about anything"? (Therefore you are wrong about everything).

 

[rousseau]

Jewish cultural norms mean that it's been historically common for them to inter-marry, which means that their culture is somewhat isolated, and that there should be somewhat distinct markers in their genetics. This has nothing to do with the religion, everything to do with the culture and the low rate that they meld with other cultures.

If you were to take any group of people and isolate them from other populations for a couple thousand years you would start to see them diverge genetically in certain ways.

 

[rousseau]

2) Have you ever been approached by someone who mistook what you were talking about and thought you were on "their side", but in fact were on the opposite "side" of the "argument"?

I notice that some people have trigger words, and the way you phrase things can cause vastly different interpretations. Few people are out to understand what you're trying to say, just what side you're on and whether they should attack or pat you on the back.

These days I find myself stopping myself from responding to a lot of people about things because the conversations are less about reasoning through a problem, more about virtue signalling to their peers or defending in-grained beliefs.

 

[Malintent]

2) Have you ever been approached by someone who mistook what you were talking about and thought you were on "their side", but in fact were on the opposite "side" of the "argument"?

I notice that some people have trigger words, and the way you phrase things can cause vastly different interpretations. Few people are out to understand what you're trying to say, just what side you're on and whether they should attack or pat you on the back.

These days I find myself stopping myself from responding to a lot of people about things because the conversations are less about reasoning through a problem, more about virtue signalling to their peers or defending in-grained beliefs.

You are right. In the singular case of street preachers, I take it upon myself to give listeners the opportunity to hear certain beliefs stated another way, nonetheless.

 

[Politesse]

It is not genetic, but it is frequently inherited. In the pre-Enlightenment years, most people in the world tended to assume that religious affiliations and responsibilities were an assigned, not chosen, trait. So it is not surprising that we get confused about connections between the things one receives from family socially as opposed to biologically. Other common examples include ideas about social roles ("it's natural for..."), nationality, and "race". There's always an apparent connection, since families are in fact biologically related, but pass things down by other more arbitrary means as well.

 

[rousseau]

It is not genetic, but it is frequently inherited. In the pre-Enlightenment years, most people in the world tended to assume that religious affiliations and responsibilities were an assigned, not chosen, trait. So it is not surprising that we get confused about connections between the things one receives from family socially as opposed to biologically. Other common examples include ideas about social roles ("it's natural for..."), nationality, and "race".

As far as genetics go, there are theories out there that will predict religiosity being more prevalent among those with lower general intelligence. So in that sense it's partially genetic in a more indirect way.

 

[Politesse]

It is not genetic, but it is frequently inherited. In the pre-Enlightenment years, most people in the world tended to assume that religious affiliations and responsibilities were an assigned, not chosen, trait. So it is not surprising that we get confused about connections between the things one receives from family socially as opposed to biologically. Other common examples include ideas about social roles ("it's natural for..."), nationality, and "race".

As far as genetics go, there are theories out there that will predict religiosity being more prevalent among those with lower general intelligence. So in that sense it's partially genetic in a more indirect way.

I think you mean hypotheses; theories by definition have been empirically tested and not discarded. Intelligence is itself a deeply problematic concept from a scientific point of view, a largely subjective judgement that relies heavily on models of cultural expectation. One can be demonstrably skilled at a specific task, but choosing which tasks are important when making essentialist value statements about others is an inherently arbitrary process.

 

[rousseau]

It is not genetic, but it is frequently inherited. In the pre-Enlightenment years, most people in the world tended to assume that religious affiliations and responsibilities were an assigned, not chosen, trait. So it is not surprising that we get confused about connections between the things one receives from family socially as opposed to biologically. Other common examples include ideas about social roles ("it's natural for..."), nationality, and "race".

As far as genetics go, there are theories out there that will predict religiosity being more prevalent among those with lower general intelligence. So in that sense it's partially genetic in a more indirect way.

I think you mean hypotheses; theories by definition have been empirically tested and not discarded. Intelligence is itself a deeply problematic concept from a scientific point of view, a largely subjective judgement that relies heavily on models of cultural expectation. One can be demonstrably skilled at a specific task, but choosing which tasks are important when making essentialist value statements about others is an inherently arbitrary process.

No I mean theory. I suspect you could find an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows low general intelligence is correlated with religiosity.

I'm mainly taking my argument from The Intelligence Paradox by Satoshi Kanazawa. Maybe intelligence as a concept is problematic to science, but 'General Intelligence' as far as I understand it measures a very specific ability of a person to solve novel problems in their environment. For example, if you put a person in a weird situation, how likely are they to get out of it.

Said book posits that people with high general intelligence are very likely to act in ways that are novel historically.. less kids, less religion, etc, and shows this to in fact be the case with data.

When you look at something like religion you could easily frame it as just another 'problem' (if our goal is accurate understanding and not something like social cohesion). For a person to see through the facade takes significant intellectual ability, and so we should see people with less intellect making up a higher proportion of believers than atheists.

In that way, yes religion is passed down from parents to children, but in addition to that there is going to be a genetic propensity to conform to the same beliefs.

 

[Politesse]

I think you mean hypotheses; theories by definition have been empirically tested and not discarded. Intelligence is itself a deeply problematic concept from a scientific point of view, a largely subjective judgement that relies heavily on models of cultural expectation. One can be demonstrably skilled at a specific task, but choosing which tasks are important when making essentialist value statements about others is an inherently arbitrary process.

No I mean theory. I suspect you could find an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows low general intelligence is correlated with religiosity.

I'm mainly taking my argument from The Intelligence Paradox by Satoshi Kanazawa. Maybe intelligence as a concept is problematic to science, but 'General Intelligence' as far as I understand it measures a very specific ability of a person to solve novel problems in their environment. For example, if you put a person in a weird situation, how likely are they to get out of it.

Said book posits that people with high general intelligence are very likely to act in ways that are novel historically.. less kids, less religion, etc, and shows this to in fact be the case with data.

When you look at something like religion you could easily frame it as just another 'problem' (if our goal is accurate understanding and not something like social cohesion). For a person to see through the facade takes significant intellectual ability, and so we should see people with less intellect making up a higher proportion of believers than atheists.

In that way, yes religion is passed down from parents to children, but in addition to that there is going to be a genetic propensity to conform to the same beliefs.

Is this the same Satoshi Kanazawa who supposedly proved that Asians can't paint, that black women were objectively uglier than white women, and nearly got fired from the LSE in the backlash? I would be interested about the empirical grounding for his book, if it is being claimed as "science".

 

[rousseau]

I think you mean hypotheses; theories by definition have been empirically tested and not discarded. Intelligence is itself a deeply problematic concept from a scientific point of view, a largely subjective judgement that relies heavily on models of cultural expectation. One can be demonstrably skilled at a specific task, but choosing which tasks are important when making essentialist value statements about others is an inherently arbitrary process.

No I mean theory. I suspect you could find an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows low general intelligence is correlated with religiosity.

I'm mainly taking my argument from The Intelligence Paradox by Satoshi Kanazawa. Maybe intelligence as a concept is problematic to science, but 'General Intelligence' as far as I understand it measures a very specific ability of a person to solve novel problems in their environment. For example, if you put a person in a weird situation, how likely are they to get out of it.

Said book posits that people with high general intelligence are very likely to act in ways that are novel historically.. less kids, less religion, etc, and shows this to in fact be the case with data.

When you look at something like religion you could easily frame it as just another 'problem' (if our goal is accurate understanding and not something like social cohesion). For a person to see through the facade takes significant intellectual ability, and so we should see people with less intellect making up a higher proportion of believers than atheists.

In that way, yes religion is passed down from parents to children, but in addition to that there is going to be a genetic propensity to conform to the same beliefs.

Is this the same Satoshi Kanazawa who supposedly proved that Asians can't paint, that black women were objectively uglier than white women, and nearly got fired from the LSE in the backlash? I would be interested about the empirical grounding for his book, if it is being claimed as "science".

You'd have to read it and/or read criticisms.

I found the argument convincing even if a bit tenuous in places.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It is not genetic, but it is frequently inherited. In the pre-Enlightenment years, most people in the world tended to assume that religious affiliations and responsibilities were an assigned, not chosen, trait. So it is not surprising that we get confused about connections between the things one receives from family socially as opposed to biologically. Other common examples include ideas about social roles ("it's natural for..."), nationality, and "race". There's always an apparent connection, since families are in fact biologically related, but pass things down by other more arbitrary means as well.

Religious behavior is a behavior like other behaviors. How would it not be selected for or against in a population?

 

[Politesse]

It is not genetic, but it is frequently inherited. In the pre-Enlightenment years, most people in the world tended to assume that religious affiliations and responsibilities were an assigned, not chosen, trait. So it is not surprising that we get confused about connections between the things one receives from family socially as opposed to biologically. Other common examples include ideas about social roles ("it's natural for..."), nationality, and "race". There's always an apparent connection, since families are in fact biologically related, but pass things down by other more arbitrary means as well.

Religious behavior is a behavior like other behaviors. How would it not be selected for or against in a population?

We inherit brains and their inherent and variable capacities, not specific behaviors. How do you imagine you came out an atheist? You and you alone defeated your biology by sheer strength of will?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It is not genetic, but it is frequently inherited. In the pre-Enlightenment years, most people in the world tended to assume that religious affiliations and responsibilities were an assigned, not chosen, trait. So it is not surprising that we get confused about connections between the things one receives from family socially as opposed to biologically. Other common examples include ideas about social roles ("it's natural for..."), nationality, and "race". There's always an apparent connection, since families are in fact biologically related, but pass things down by other more arbitrary means as well.

Religious behavior is a behavior like other behaviors. How would it not be selected for or against in a population?

We inherit brains and their inherent and variable capacities, not specific behaviors. How do you imagine you came out an atheist? You and you alone defeated your biology by sheer strength of will?

Nature is constantly serving up new recipes for what constitutes human. My atheism is hardly something unexpected. Had I been born in Medieval Europe I'd have been burned alive. I'd certainly call that selection pressure.

We are born with differences in our brains, personalities and tendencies, same as we are born with more physical differences like height, hair color, etc., but they are all physical differences that manifest as behaviors. We inherit much from our parents who inherited from their parents who inherited from their parents etc. That's basic biology 101. But the environment is constantly selecting for and against those behaviors.

 

[Politesse]

We inherit brains and their inherent and variable capacities, not specific behaviors. How do you imagine you came out an atheist? You and you alone defeated your biology by sheer strength of will?

Nature is constantly serving up new recipes for what constitutes human. My atheism is hardly something unexpected. Had I been born in Medieval Europe I'd have been burned alive. I'd certainly call that selection pressure.

We are born with differences in our brains, personalities and tendencies, same as we are born with more physical differences like height, hair color, etc., but they are all physical differences that manifest as behaviors. We inherit much from our parents who inherited from their parents who inherited from their parents etc. That's basic biology 101. But the environment is constantly selecting for and against those behaviors.

So your position is that your philosophy is a genetic variation?

 

[Malintent]

It is not genetic, but it is frequently inherited. In the pre-Enlightenment years, most people in the world tended to assume that religious affiliations and responsibilities were an assigned, not chosen, trait. So it is not surprising that we get confused about connections between the things one receives from family socially as opposed to biologically. Other common examples include ideas about social roles ("it's natural for..."), nationality, and "race". There's always an apparent connection, since families are in fact biologically related, but pass things down by other more arbitrary means as well.

Religious behavior is a behavior like other behaviors. How would it not be selected for or against in a population?

because we don't generally kill everyone we disagree with. generally.

"Selection", in a genetic sense, means "not killed before reproduced". Not, "thought favorably of by a large segment".

Even Nazi's seem capable of finding a mate to impregnate to create tomorrow's Nazis.