Japan want 2 aircraft carrier. . .die liao die liao

last SG · 2003-07-18T19:04:15+00:00

Atobe, look, with regards to Japan and WW2, i can meet you halfway and agree that the situation of that time, coupled with the multitude of factors; shintoi...

CX SG

Originally posted by Atobe:
While I can understand that the 1930s were a very turbulent period, it does not explain away how an entire nation (or at least the majority of its people) can be so easily swept away by mass psychology, and accept the ruthless extermination and barbaric treatment to peoples of other genetic groups.

don't underestimate the depths of human depravity and the power of the masses.

normally, u and i wouldn't be driven to kill our neighbours, burn their homes and blame them for all our problems.

but if the mass media played it up and a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign to direct our latent anger, and infiltrated agitators into the masses, u can have something along the lines Crystal Night.

the key is to empower individuals through masses. once empowered, they will become blind to their individual conscience. the collective will overwhelm them and subjugate them.

race, ethnicity and nationality is secondary. u can make the swiss Nazis under the correct set of circumstances and given the correct agitation.

Many nations have seen local ethnic or tribal military battles of different scales in their history from the Aztecs of Central America, to Chinas Wars of the Kingdoms, to Japans internal Wars of the Shoguns, to the "Wars of Conquests" in South-east Asian kingdoms, and that of South and West Asian Empires of India, Persia, Arab and Turkish Sultanates but the world did not see the scale of war as fought by the efficiency and military organization achieved by both Germany and Japan with mass loyalty and acceptance.

that's because they were fundamentally different types of war. in military history, there is a line drawn between the wars of the19th century and those before that.

the Napoleonic wars was often the dividing line though some agree to disagree.

WW1 and WW2 obviously falls into the post-19th century line... Modern Wars. they were fought with the full extent of national industries, economics and will. railroads, steel and chemicals did wonders in increasing the efficiency of warfare.

and soldiers don't just follow commanders and ideologies... they follow victory.

It was with thorough and ruthless efficiency that these two Nations executed wars, and carried out ethnic cleansing with such brutish efficiency that there do not seem to be any other parallel in history to compare with.

there isn't a precedent because it was something unique... the excesses of industrialisation if u ask me... it probably had something to do with the fact that Germans were known to be efficient (come on... anyone who's driven a Benz or a Beemer knows that them krauts are GREAT engineers Mr. Green ), but they had very good equipment to help them as well...

as mentioned, steel, chemicals, railroads... not to mentioned that IBM actually found it profitable to sell the Nazis their new mainframes to count Jews.

It is genetics that makes a race.

It is the race that makes up a society, its culture, its social norms, its politics, its history, and its national (racial), industrial and economic character, all of which in turn will also mold or reinforce the innate genetic make-up of the person born into such a place.

Some race are more war like than others, what can we attribute this to ?

i'm never too sure about that... (not convinced at all actually...) but like i said, i'll meet u halfway and say for the sake of this conversation, that there are many contributing factors and race [bmay[/b] be one of them though it would be rather shallow and really stupid to overwhelmingly attribute anything to ONE cause/factor.

Gedanken SG

Atobe, there have been no research findngs that indicate that genetics can have such a widespread effect. Thus far, while there have been studies that demonstrate how genetics can affect patterns of behaviour, these have been found mainly in monozygotic (identical twins) - the effect of genetics on the behaviour on dizygotic (fraternal) twins has been found to be much weaker, indicating that unless people have exactly identical genetic makeups, the effects on behaviour are not very strong. Besides, if genetics had such a strong effect, we would see the same thing happening in North India, where the Aryans descended from.

I would recommend the works of Leon Festinger, Henri Tajfel and, more recently, Michael Hogg for an explanation of how Germany was swept into Nazism. In the 1950s, Festinger developed Social Comparison Theory, while Tajfel worked on Social Categorisation Theory, and over the years later researchers have integrated their theories.

The crux of these theories is that there are two kinds of groups - those that you belong to, and everybody else. We tend to identify ourselves by the groups that we belong to, and we build our self-esteem by comparing our group favourably in comparison to other groups. In extreme circumstances, this disparity in comparison results in the other groups being viewed as degenerates, as the Jews, Slavs and other Nazi target groups were. An example of such extreme circumstances is the state of the German economy during the Great Depression, which was ripe for the picking because the German people needed someone to blame. Over the past fifty years, experiments testing Tajfel's and Festinger's theories have shown that such an effect exists, and that this effect applies across different cultures.

As for the loyalty angle, Stanley Milgram at Yale University performed a set of experiments in 1961, examining the "obedience to authority defense" used at Nuremberg. To quote a description of the experiment:

"In the experiment, so-called "teachers" (who were actually the unknowing subjects of the experiment) were recruited by Milgram. They were asked administer an electric shock of increasing intensity to a "learner" for each mistake he made during the experiment. The fictitious story given to these "teachers" was that the experiment was exploring effects of punishment (for incorrect responses) on learning behavior. The "teacher" was not aware that the "learner" in the study was actually an actor - - merely indicating discomfort as the "teacher" increased the electric shocks.

When the "teacher" asked whether increased shocks should be given he/she was verbally encouraged to continue. Sixty percent of the "teachers" obeyed orders to punish the learner to the very end of the 450-volt scale! No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts!"

The subjects in these experiments were not German - they were good old clean-cut Americans. Over 25 years, between 1961 and 1985, the same results were found in repeats of the study in Australia, South Africa and in several European countries, until the experiments were finally banned as being unethical.

In all of the experiments conducted over that period, at least two thirds of the subjects delivered electric shocks, even theough they were distressed by having to do it.

The key finding of the Milgram experiments is quite simple: such behaviour is not restricted to any specific culture.

As for the skinheads, the skinheads in Germany are not related to either those in the UK nor the rednecks in the US, who are predominantly Anglo-Saxon, not Aryan. Also, their presence is nothing new; when I was in England ten years ago, I was advised to give Exmouth a wide berth because the skinhead party had finally been voted in after years of trying. Another thing is that there is little relation between the rednecks and the Aryan Brotherhood in the US; the two can quite often be found at each others' throats.

While I agree with you that the ethnic cleansing during WW2 is of an unprecedented scale, and of one that has not been seen since, this is to a great extent influenced by circumstances. Certainly, had Zyklon B and automatic weapons been available, the Crusades would have given the Holocaust a good run for its money. Also, the 200-year-old war between the Serbs and Croats (the current situation is a continuation after a brief interruption under Communist rule) was much more savage than what the Nazis did. After WW2, such mass murder has not taken place by virtue of the fact that the rest of the world scrutinises such things more closely now. Keep in mind that the full extent of the Holocaust was not known to many Germans, much less the rest of the world, until after the war.

Finally, I cannot but note with no little sense of irony that your line of argument has one particularly disturbing implication: that the Nazis were right.

redrooster79 SG

a whole nation of aggre-sapiens with XYY gene,mmmmm i would hardly think so

Atobe SG

To CX and Gedanken

It is amazing how a simple topic can draw out the best from both of you, and I am grateful for both your contribution in so much information in this area of genetics and eugenics.

The purpose of my raising this area of genetic concern, is not so much of identifying with the Nazi belief, but to raise as a possible alarm in the Past and Present Character of the Japanese, in their present effort to rearm and remobilize their supposedly Self-Defense Force.

In my continued search for information on the subject of Genetics, I noticed that there were parallel studies on Eugenics as well, and with conclusions on the effects of genetics on race, and with different voices leveled at such conclusions.

Be as it may, we do find in any societies the elements of the intelligent, the mundane, the hyperactive, the creative, and the criminal (with more classification or group types, if these few do not cover the remaining).

Since the first identification of such different elements in society, many psychologists, psychiatrists, biotechnologists, and the medical scientists have all tried to understand these critical make-up which has led to the conclusions that genetics are common regardless of race, but that tweaks of genetic variances do create the differences that produce the different elements in any society.

There were conclusions drawn that in a closed society, or a poor one, with no access to external influences or knowledge (scientific or otherwise), and in which development of its societal knowledge, experiences, and practices remain static, there will be little development in the progress of the peoples from that society. Leading itself to its own limited creative progress and slow degradation.

While I can accept it is human nature (genetic reaction? ) to identify oneself to be us and them, and in the process make the comparisons as expounded so well by Gedanken, it does not explain away the acceptance of the criminal behavior from the conscience of the same human being that is supposed to have the same genetic conscience common to all regardless of race.

In the Stanley Milgrams experiment given by Gedanken, I am not sure if the experiment portrayed correctly the violent nature of man cutting across all races, or if it more accurately confirm the intended task of determining how extreme the Teacher is prepared to go when urged on and authorized to do so.

Under such circumstances, anyone given a task will rightly proceed on, especially when the Teacher has no knowledge as to the significance of what 400 volts can do did the report mentioned if such knowledge was made clearly known?

In the study of genetics, some researches have concluded that different social groups tend to attract those with similar characteristic in mental and/or physical attributes or as the proverb goes: Birds of a feather, flocks together.

In this day and age, it is surprising that one should find the resurgence of racist groups such as the Skinheads in Germany, UK, and the equivalent Red Necks in the USA with some of these groups openly admiring neo-Nazism.

Although they may not fraternize together, the fact that the resurgence of such parochial groups should return and attract the same age group in different societies separated by geography can be quite telling from the genetic point of view.

These parochial groups share a common streak of criminal admiration of violence, racism, and the adoration of neo-Nazism.

They are all Whites, all Caucasians.

They may come from different racial stock but as was mentioned previously, some genetic characteristics cut across race.

Is this genetic tweak at work?

In Japan, the Hard Line Nationalists lurks in the shadows of political corridors, and could well be the powerhouses that determine the rise and fall of political figures.

These Hard Line Nationalists could well be some of the Japanese WW-2 personalities that were given leniency by the US Administrators ( as mentioned by CX ); and are probably the instigators that prevent Japan from ever making an apology to Asia, nor accept responsibilities for all the atrocities committed in Asia.

Should we not be wary then of a resurgence of the genetic tweaks in Japan, in the light of its continued denial to the historical events of WW-2, and its efforts to expand the role of its Self-Defense Force, and now with its attempt to own its first two Aircraft Carriers ?

Atobe SG

For further read to the above post, please take a look into the following sites:

Genetics (The Flow) : Review Lynns Eugenics
http://darwin.psy.fsu.edu/pipermail/genetics/2001-November/001471.html

Race and Genetics
http://www.celluloid-wisdom.com/pw/archives/001517.html

Race and Genetics Trinicentre.com
http://www.trinicenter.com/sciencenews/raceandgenetics.htm

Genetics, Personality, and Race (American Renaissance)
http://www.commonsenseclub.com/persony.html

Modem Genetics is Eugenics
http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap16.html

CX SG

Originally posted by Atobe:

.... In this day and age, it is surprising that one should find the resurgence of racist groups such as the Skinheads in Germany, UK, and the equivalent Red Necks in the USA with some of these groups openly admiring neo-Nazism.

Although they may not fraternize together, the fact that the resurgence of such parochial groups should return and attract the same age group in different societies separated by geography can be quite telling from the genetic point of view.

These parochial groups share a common streak of criminal admiration of violence, racism, and the adoration of neo-Nazism.

They are all Whites, all Caucasians.

what rubbish! honestly Atobe, i expected a more intelligent statement than THAT from you! Rolling Eyes

how's this then: all brown pple are lazy and stupid, all yellow pple are money grubbing and warlike, all black pple smell bad and have bad manners ah... but genes cut across geographic boundaries too... and there are sometimes cross-breeding... so there are in-between half-breeds as well... yellow pple who are lazy but money grubbing, brown pple who may have bad manners as well and black pple who are money grubbing AND smell bad.

i know your argument did not intend to take THIS extreme, but thats exactly what it implies! the assumptions made are absurd!

u might as well measure everyone's head to determine their I.Q...

u are straying across the line of the hard sciences which characterises modern genetics, the same discipline which values empirical evidence backed by scientific experiments, into the area of pseudo-sciences, where dubious claims are dressed up with supposedly and skewed scientific findings to legitimise them.

[size=smalll]They may come from different racial stock but as was mentioned previously, some genetic characteristics cut across race.

Is this genetic tweak at work?[/size]

we don't know for sure how it works, or if it does at all. until we do... until we do...

[quote]In Japan, the Hard Line Nationalists lurks in the shadows of political corridors, and could well be the powerhouses that determine the rise and fall of political figures.

These Hard Line Nationalists could well be some of the Japanese WW-2 personalities that were given leniency by the US Administrators ( as mentioned by CX ); and are probably the instigators that prevent Japan from ever making an apology to Asia, nor accept responsibilities for all the atrocities committed in Asia.[/quote]

that's a matter of politics and interests, not genes. do u have any idea how much money they may have to pay in reparations if they came up with a full, unreserved apology?

shallow as it may sound, i think it makes more sense than the "recalcitrant gene" theory...

[quote]Should we not be wary then of a resurgence of the genetic tweaks in Japan, in the light of its continued denial to the historical events of WW-2, and its efforts to expand the role of its Self-Defense Force, and now with its attempt to own its first two Aircraft Carriers ?[/quote]

i say "it depends" ... isn't it hypocritical of the world to accept (and in fact crave) Japanese economic aid and investments while refusing to entertain the possibility that Japan will want to behave like a normal sovereign country eventually: with a role to play, the muscles to play them and interests to safeguard?

besides, given the current World Order, Japan can no longer get away with aggressive expansionism. name me one place where Japan can conquer with relative ease and without repercussions?

i don't even want to continue the conversation about genes anymore. its not helpful in understanding the situation at all... what we have before us, is a political situation, not a hare-brained genetic one we can barely substantiate.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

No I seriously think attempting to link behaviourial traits with genetics is at best a very weak link. I believe it is more of a question of nurture then nature in this case.

Basically, if whites are supposed to be racist and nazis, then I suppose those of them who are decidedly anti-racist are then considered abnormal? What is then "normal" for their race. Can it be said that Singaporeans are genetically kiasu? Or prehaps there are genes that determine singlish useage? Nonsense. If there is ont thing that is clear, the behaviour of humans are more far more distinct from their genes then the other less intelligent animals.

And besides, there is actually no definable scientific concept in the first place for race. Not by genetics not by traits. The truth of the matter is that in reality, there is no scientific evidence for race. All humans are members of one race, and that is Homo sapiens sapiens.

I believe the reason why some dudes tend to be racist or do whatever they do is more of a result of cultural upbringing. Some whites people tend towards the idea of racial superiority simply because their culture has long been steeped in xenophobia and harking back to the "good old days" where they were the "masters". In any natural context, it's not any stretch of the imagination, given redneck ignorance of other cultures and their knowledge of how the white man was supposedly dominant in the past, that they will form the conclusion that they are the master race, and hence on and so forth.

Basically, I have to say this. No, there is no such thing as genetics of racism or other behavioural traits. Unlike innate behaviour, such complex behaviour is learned. While genes can control the abilities to make these kinds of patterns possible, they are unable to create the patterns themselves.

Hence, to say things like racism is innate to genetics, is to say that a baby will be able to learn concepts like language and maths simply by growing up, and not having those supjects thought to them by their caregivers. Basically while genes can make the vocal chords and the large brain to make these things possible for the baby to acomplish, it cannot do so unless somebody put those concepts in there. Racism is not innate, it is an unfortunate collection of misconceptions, xenophobia and a lofty sense of self all rolled up into one. Who put it there, genetics?

No, it is the culture.

Gedanken SG

Atobe, it is a matter of professional interest for me. I am a psychologist, and one of the projects that I am working on at the moment is the study of genetics in relation to drug addictions and mental illnesses. That said, I also always enjoy good debates! Mr. Green

As for your question about the Milgram experiments, the "teachers" and "learners" were seperated by a piece of frosted glass, so that the "teachers" could see the effects of the electric shocks.

The experiments were ultimately banned because of the distressing effects they had on the subjects. In an excerpt (although I am not sure if this was from the original study):

"I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching nervous collapse. He constantly pulled on his ear lobe, and twisted his hands. At one point he pushed his fist into his forehead and muttered "Oh God, lets stop it". And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter, and obeyed to the end.".

In answer to your question, yes, they knew the effects of a 400-volt electric shock, yes, they were distressed about it and yes, they carried on anyway.

If you manage to find a copy, read Dave Grossman's book "On Killing". LTC (ret.) Grossman is an ex-Ranger and a psychologist, and his book describes how soldiers have been made much more efficient at killing over the course of the twentieth century. It reinforces the point that the nature of the basic material at the start has little influence of the result - the characters are molded by environmental influences.

That is quite a mixed bag of references that you provided in your post. I read the first article with a sense of horror - it was a who's who of the villains of scientific research. Of course, then I realised that it came from American Renaissance, and with such a name, it was obviously a white supremacist publication. I looked up their website, and lo and behold, it was a thinly-disguised propaganda sheet for the Ku Klux Klan.

The third article strikes me as being the best - it describes how some ideas have been pushed out to the public without having first been fully tested, and how misguided they have turned out to be. As CX has quite rightly pointed out, many of these studies make propositions based upon the thinnest scientific evidence. Unfortunately, it is way too easy to convince a layman of a point by laying the jargon on by the bucketful. The figures, if they can produce any in the first place, have never been able to support their claims, but it does usually take someone with research training to poke holes in their stories.

Another key point of that third article is, as SingaporeTyrannosaur
pointed out, genetics distinguishes between individials and not races. Also, another good point by ST is that complex responses are much less likely to be determined by genetic factors than are simple reactions. For something as complex as a racist mentality (which ironically is mostly held by simpletons), it is a matter of education rather than instinct.

Once you have your finger on the pulse of what makes the people tick, it is not really all that difficult to manipulate a crowd. Hitler identified the bruised German pride at the end of WW1, as well as their desperate economic circumstances in the late 20's and early 30's. he gave them someone to blame and a cure-all solution for it, and they ate it right up because desperate people need something to cling to. German culture is based upon order and uniformity, and he pushed that button hard by presenting Jews and other races as aberrations. For all of his madness, Hitler had a very good understanding of German culture and psychology, and that was what he used to manipulate the country.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Basically as I have said, I do not buy the idea at all that the Japanese will be militaristic killers because of their genes. However I must then again state that if they as a people are not aware of the mistakes of their predecessors, they are not being very smart as they will end up repeating them.

Don't buy the idea of genes=behaviour, not unless you also want to accept the idea that the white people is by birth pure and noble and all other races are defects. Which is basically their premise for pushing for a life idealogy based on what you were born with, and not what you really can be.

redrooster79 SG

"Grand Challenge III-2 Understand the relationships between genomics, race and ethnicity, and the consequences of uncovering these relationships.

Race is a largely non-biological concept confounded by misunderstanding and a long history of prejudice. The relationship of genomics to the concepts of race and ethnicity has to be considered within complex historical and social contexts.

Most variation in the genome is shared between all populations, but certain alleles are more frequent in some populations than in others, largely as a result of history and geography. Use of genetic data to define racial groups, or of racial categories to classify biological traits, is prone to misinterpretation. To minimize such misinterpretation, the biological and sociocultural factors that interrelate genetics with constructs of race and ethnicity need to be better understood and communicated within the next few years.

This will require research on how different individuals and cultures conceive of race, ethnicity, group identity and self-identity, and what role they believe genes or other biological factors have. It will also require a critical examination of how the scientific community understands and uses these concepts in designing research and presenting findings, and of how the media report these. Also necessary is widespread education about the biological meaning and limitations of research findings in this area (Box 6), and the formulation and adoption of public-policy options that protect against genomics-based discrimination or maltreatment (see Grand Challenge III-1)."

http://www.genome.gov/11007524

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Research done on genes is nowhere near conclusive, thus to claim that genes does not effect behaviour could be premature but the claim that genetic material dictates the behaviour of whole racial stocks could be even further farfetched at this point in time. Anyway Atobe, with your mention of neo-nazis you are bringing attention to a particular minority within a society and can hardly be conclusive evidence to be presented as proof for the "warlikeness", and the fact that or neonazis look similiar comes from the fact that it was designed to appeal to such people not only becuase of who they are but who they are suppose to prejudice against, the very precepts of neonazism already excluds a whole lot of people just because of their skin colour of ethinicity.
Perhaps up to now, perhaps only the XYY gene provides some linkage between behaviour and genetic material where 1 in 1000 males have the XYY gene and 4% of inmates in britain possess the gene. This data could proof some correlation but is in no way a major contributor to the probability that you could become a criminal.
Fact is, Genome research is at a point where it cannot even provide much useful data for a proper definhative discourse but could only aid in speculation(lets not even start to mention eugenics) thus it is far too early to take so many steps ahead and presume that there is definate relations between the content of a nations genetic stock and it ability to affect national and societal conscious and behaviour.
My 2 cents

Atobe SG

The study of genetics is still in its early stages of being understood, and several countries are only presently unraveling the mysteries of its genome, and trying to piece together the mysteries that it hold.

Much like when psychiatry was first promulgated by Sigmund Freud, who drew as much skepticism during his time, with very vociferous critics in the present day colors as our learned CX, any attempts to link genetics with racial characteristics will draw as much criticism and ridicule.

It is interesting that Gedanken is a psychologist, and presently studying genetics in relation to drug addictions and mental illnesses.

Your approach in the study of genetics in relation to drug addiction will probably be (in a nutshell description) in the direction of how the DNA in ones genes kick-off certain drug addiction or the likes of it; but I am curious to understand in which direction will the study of genetics be linked with mental illnesses ?

Behavioral distinctiveness of race is as much to do with circumstances such as cultural, social, parochial environment, peer pressures that amounts to nurturing, which will probably trigger the genetic traits of one group more then another from a different set of circumstances.

Is kiasuism a genetic trait of Singapore alone ?

I hardly think so, although the term is coined by Singaporeans to describe this form of social behavior, which I seem to see as pronounced mainly in all Chinese stock from Malaysia, Taiwan, and Mainland China - and Vietnamese too, considering that they have been ruled by China for more then a thousand years in ancient history.

If CX remark is correct, how does one explain for the differences in cranial size, the physical bone size and body structure of Caucasians are much larger than Asians in general - not that there is any marked difference in intelligence levels ?

This is still a fairly new area of scientific study, and there are still many unexplored areas that remain to be challenged, in our limited understanding of this unknown area.

Do we close our mind and shut out the unexplored based on our present level of knowledge, and subject such area of study to ridicule ?

There were more websites that I have visited to understand more about genetics and its effect on race, but found these short listed and diverse five - from disparate organizations, so as to gain some degree of objectivity.

In the list of references given:

The first, Genetics (The Flow): Review Lynns Eugenics
This article was written in defense of Eugenics written by Richard Lynn, who himself is a Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Northern Ireland, can this be the breeding ground for KKK White Supremacy activities?

The second, Race and Genetics was an article of interest posted on a Website of a mysterious www.celluloid-wisdom.com - with an interesting article that does not hint of any association with the Ku Klux Klan.

The third, Race and Genetics Trinicentre.com is an article promoted by the Trinidad Centre that promote the equality of Race through the understanding of Genetics, hardly a site for Ku Klux Klan.

The fourth, Genetics, Personality, and Race (American Renaissance) is a White Supremacy organization, and the purpose of this reference site was purely for the paper that was presented on its merit. From the five reference sites given, only this site seems to be associated with the KKK organization.

The fifth, Modern Genetics is Eugenics was a post from the website of www.eugenics-watch.com, an organization that seems to be linked to the Catholic Church, hardly a site to be associated with the Ku Klax Klan.

So I am surprised that the writers of these articles will form the whos who of the villains of scientific research, if such a list exist.

I do agree with all the views posted with regards to the weak link of the race and genetics based on the present day understanding of genetics and eugenics.

There are uniqueness in traits of a specific race that are not found in others not by custom or social influences, but perhaps by genetic traits that affect the psychological characteristics of some racial groups.

If genetic research can confirm that deformity can be inherited through the generations of a single family, will this not also result in some genetic tweak being passed on to an entire racial group that give each its unique psychological and physical attributes?

The purpose of raising genetic traits in this topic was to understand the make-up of the Japanese, from past known historical performance military, economic, and cultural and the possible threat that they can pose in the future, with their present attempts at gaining military experience (much as our SAF has taken a step-by-step approach in assuming its role on the World Stage, as described in my earlier post).

I can understand the frustration caused by this very controversial line of discussion, but it will be a challenge to the future that will be a reply to CX statement - that given the current World Order, Japan can no longer get away with aggressive expansionism. name me one place where Japan can conquer with relative ease and without repercussions?

The question or statement posed by CX sounded very familiar during the years before Pearl Harbor - in its own time context.

Japan was on the right side during the outbreak of WW-1; then during WW-2, it took the side of the AXIS Powers by aligning itself with Germany and Italy.

Perhaps it will be safer to get Japan to stay engage in the World Community, by getting it to spend its large reserves to participate in more UN sanctioned missions throughout the World at the risks of allowing it to gain military experience on overseas missions.

What happens when it find itself supremely confident of its own independent role, much like the USA is behaving today, and when sometime in the future a rogue leader appear in Japan with the other countries in political and economic disarray?

Who can say what the world order will be like in another ten, twenty, or fifty years?

Did we believe that by 2003, the SAF would be the primary military force in South-east Asia, from our humble beginning in 1968?

Can anyone foretell what the world will be like in another fifty years from 2003 ?

Can we trust Japan with its present military adventurism through the auspices of the UN, and now allowing it to obtain two aircraft carriers ?

I would like to agree with the position taken by Singapore Tyrannosaur that Japan will more likely to wage war - if they as a people are not aware of the mistakes of their predecessors, they are not being very smart as they will end up repeating them.

However, it is too simple, and there must be something deep rooted for a group of people to be so quick to take up arms and kill.

Psychological conditioning as suggested by Gendaken ?

Some are quicker to the draw than others.

Atobe SG

Many thanks for your timely contribution.

My intent to bring up the "Skinheads" and the "Red Necks" was to highlight the fact of such "aggressive" types found amongst the Caucasians, in their respective communities that are separated by geography.

Although limited in size, the frequency of these neo-Nazis groups appearing within their various communities are quite high in UK, Germany, and USA - with these three countries having the highest rate of profileration found in the Caucasian World.

These are the extremes from their respective societies, and although they come from different racial or national stock, they are all Caucasians - with a fair percentage not squirming away from violence, whether for a National Cause (as UK in the Falklands), or from a parochial cause (as in attitudes towards Asian migration).

To broaden (or maybe to narrowly focus) the observation further on genetics and behavior, I noticed a higher level of aggressive social behavior AGAINST Authority found in the Belgians more than the French, or the Dutch, or the Germans.

When the Caucasians are compared with the Asians (from the West, Central, South, South-east and the East), the behavior and attitudes are certainly different towards authority.

One can attribute it to culture, social norms, political process, and what other influences, but such external influences are established by the Human purposeful intervention or involvement that affect its development - (genetics at work ?).

Your post was timely, in your understanding of the issue raised, and certainly will help to shed additional light in this study of genetics and behavior - although my interest is in the direction of the group.

After reading from your recommended National Human Genome Research Institute, I will look forward to any further development from their declared goal as shown in:

Grand Challenge III-2 Understand the relationships between genomics, race and ethnicity, and the consequences of uncovering these relationships.

http://www.genome.gov/11007524

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

The main problem with using genetics to explain complex behavior, in the case of humans, is directly from the evolutionary standpoint of view.

While it is apparent that in some species genes are the direct cause of their innate behavior, in humans it is a new ball game. This is beacuse humans are the only animal we know of so far that has managed to break outside of the neverending evolutionary arms race that is the interlocking interaction between both species.

Firstly, genes are never constant. While they can define one species, the numbers of permutations within the species is many, if not infinitely possible. This is because diversity is the basis for evolutionary selection.

Ego, the ability to classify one race as another as more warlike or not, (not to mention the idea of distinct races within homo sapiens sapiens in genetics is in itself faulty) dosen't hold too much water at the moment because of the basic fact of evolution, that only those who survive get to pass on their genes.

Visa vi, if we look at the human race, we would discover that our ability to wrest control a large part of our evolutionary path away from that of nature would mean that many features, that would be quickly weeded out in nature, like myopia and other disorders, persist within our numbers.

Hence, one can only argue for genetics making particular people more warlike if that kind of behavior is genetically profitible, meaning that it allows their people to survive and pass on those genes which make them more predisposed to that particular behaviour to the next generation. This can been seen in the particular traits of "races" which made them more adaptable to their environment, dark skin in africans, slight build in asians, pale skin in the caucasians. These traits allow their individuals, back in the days before they were technologically enough to do so, to overcome the features of their environment.

However, now this cannot be said for aggressive behaviour or other behavioural traits you mentioned. While it is concievable that these traits can predispose individuals to certain types of behaviour, to do so to an entire population would be by genetic mathematics, impossible. This is because there are also thousands of other variations of these genes which can work directly against, or cancel out these genes which cause the basal behaviors you describe. And since having such traits are not necessary to survive and pass them on to your next generation, hence achieving a foothold in the genepool, such genes would be by all rights dissapiated or diluted, if not dissolved by breeding within the population.

Basically, neo-nazism being genetic is about as genetic as star trek or star wars fanaticsm. While genetic factors can predispose certain individuals towards liking these things, they are more of a working of idealogy and culture rather then genes. And why do you find populations of them in seperate areas? The basic reason why people with extreme idealogies with alienate them from others do: they flock together.

Hence, by virtue of genetic maths, it is quite obvious that in our modern world where little traits are advantages over the other and most people get to breed as pass on their genes with little regard to the genepool thanks to technology which allows us to survive despite defects which would be deadly in nature. (something white supremists dislike intensly), racists will not be more likely to occur in one population or the next. It is the cultural outset that determines how they turn out. In asian cultures, we appear to be less racists because of our traditions of hospitability? But just ask your grandma what she thinks of white people or balangadeshis.

Likewise, it is most probably the culture of the soceity that determines neo-nazism. If you are brought up in a culture that is has strong self-esteem (sounds like america), ignorant of others, and thinks everyone should have a right to speak out, soon or later individuals with neo-nazi idealogies will band together.

Hence it's more nurture over nature.

Atobe SG

Hi ST,

While I can understand the general directions of your post, it does not explain for the marked differences in the different energy of purpose, depth of its value systems and abilities between the Jews and the Arabs.

Nor can we explain for the vast difference in similar comparative values between the Malays, Thais, Burmese compared with the Vietnamese, Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese.

Is this due to the culture, social norms, political process, history nuturing these peoples; or did the genetic make-up of these peoples create and affect these nuturing factors that bind them further to be what they are ?

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

How you turn out is highly dependent on your environment, even cloned animals turn out to be different in both character and apperance from their parents as a result of external influences. Scientists have known for a long time that being genetically identical hardly determines how you will actually turn out in terms of apperance or behaviour. Genes determine the basic makeup, but the environment plays a very large part in shaping these patterns.

Basically, if you rasied a jew up as an arab, or a malay up as a chinese, and never made the distinction to them, they would preform no differently from what is percieved to be the cultural norm of their adoptive cultures.

Basically, despite having decoded the human genome, and figuring out what certain genes and do, we have yet to find a gene which we can say attributes to a particular behavior that will be innate in an individual and which will determine future behavior encouraging them to nuture it.

Basically, for such a claim to exist, the very genes that allow this have not only to be present, but advantegous over other traits and renforced and selected, either by deliberation or nature. However, it appears in the case of racist behavior or the like, non of thse conditions have been fufilled.

In a sense, while I cannot say absolutely that genetics have no role to play in such behavior, I can say that it is highly likely the role they play is very small, that can be easily overweighted or canceld out by other external factors, such as culture or doctrinal teaching. Basically, to make the claim that genetics must have something to do with current evidence, is like trying to make a square peg fit a round hole. It just dosen't fly.

I still remain strongly convinced that nobody's behaviorual destiny is determined from the outset of his birth or merit of genes, thousands of external factors come into play, and many of them alone are enough to overwrite those predispositions put down by their genes. It's like saying you have a jet powered aircraft that's also incidently powered by a rubber band, and then obessing on the rubber band as the source of the plane's propulsion. No guess which system actually does most of the pushing. An extreme case, but you get the idea.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Basically, I do not buy the idea of behavioural genetics. It's easier to see how the environment can play a very large part in shaping actual preceptions and behavior. In rome do as the romans do.

Basically to assume all soceities and cultures values are determined by their genetic makeup is folly. The values are shaped in direct response to their environment and lifestyles, rather then their genes.

Things however that are shaped by genetics are traits such as physical abilities and morphlogical differences. A tibetian will always be superefficent at higher attitudes and certain people from an african tribe can run faster and longer then what we determine as the norm. The list goes on.

Atobe SG

Based on current knowledge levels of genetics and eugenics, I will tend to agree with much of your posts, and that from CX and Gendaken.

However, these are still early days yet, and that even the National Human Genome Research Institute see fit to include into this field of research - (to determine the effects of genetics on human behavior) - will show some validity in this direction of thought.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

The effects of genetics on behaviour is not exactly a black art, it has been understoond fairly well since DNA was discovered. However what scientists are interested to find out is the extent of effects of genetics on complex behavior, ie. racism.

Basically from what we do know, is is entirely possible for genes to play a part in this, and they probably but as said, environment or nuture will play the major part in determining how the individual will actually turn out. As we can easily see in the ultimate case of genetically alike individuals, conjoined twins.

Even through conjoined twins are virtually genetically identical and even share biological components, their character, behaviour and idealogy are an individual as the normal person. Basically while scientists are interested to find out the effect of genes on behaviour, they know that the day where they can nail what behaviour down to what gene never be possible, because it has never been what actually drove our behavior in the first place.

Gedanken SG

That is an interesting pooint you brought up, ST. Given that conjoined twins are necessarily exposed to the same environment and that only monozygotic twins are conjoined, it would be interesting to find out what accounts for the differences between them. I shall have to look into this.

Atobe, one thing to keep in mind is that the genome project is ultimately reductionistic. As we understand how simple organisms like amoeba react to environmental conditions, we are trying to understand how each gene produces simple reactions. The difference is that we are looking at a large number of different reactions within a single organism, and at some point I expect that we will start looking at how these reactions interact with each other. However, the pertinent point here is that it is a study of how organisms react to objects and events around them. Without these environmental factors, there would be no effect because there would be no reaction. For example, in my drug-addiction study, a person may have a propensity towards drug addiction, but without exposure to drugs in the first place, there will be no addiction.

Another thing to remember is that as far as behaviour is concerned, the rule of research is that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Some Nazis obviously enjoyed their work but others, as demonstrated in the Milgram experiments, did it only under authority. The same set of behaviours can be the result of different motivations and circumstances.

The most sound approach taken in research is that the results are always viewed with caveats kept in mind. In the present case, the two points I made above need to be considered when interpreting the findings of any genetic study. The people who have failed to do this constitute the who's who of research villains that I wrote about earlier (I think you misunderstood what I wrote - the list of researchers cited in Lynn's review was what I was referring to, not the list of writers that you presented).

Atobe SG

Many thanks ST and Gendaken for both your patience and clarifications to this subject of genetics and human behavior, and my apologies to Gendaken for misinterpreting the list of villains.

While I can understand the logic of drugs shaping the habits of addiction by kick starting certain gene within ones DNA, and that without exposure to drugs in the first place, there will be no addiction; the part concerning "environmental factors affecting the general behavior of Humans" remains curiously interesting.

While organisms react to objects and events around them, will it not be the case of some organisms in each person pushing him to form reactions and decisions that RESULT in the larger guidelines of Life Activities; and with peoples within the Community having similar organisms reacting and accepting similar attitudes ?

An event that is similar to a Push-Pull effect amongst peoples with the same organism within them; while those that are not attracted will find it repulsive and move on to form other communes.

Will not the Milgram experiments also prove this Push-Pull concept even if on a speculative basis - if the Authority behind the Teacher had this organism and form an environment to activate the latent organism in the Teacher ?

Could this not explain for the behavior of the conquering Mongols that swept across Asia into Europe, and for the behavior of the Germans that started two World Wars, and the land grabbing of the Colonialist Europeans throughout the world to do battles with each other ?

Although there seems to be some hope of an Age of Peace after WW-2, there are smaller scale wars being fought during the last fifty years, by different peoples that seems to have the organism that affect their propensity to be aggressive.

Some of this groups or community or race seems to display it openly, or with varying degree of tolerance towards such groups as seen in the warring communities of Yugoslavia, Albania, Rumania, Germany, West and Central Asia (ex-Soviet regions), Spain, France (Corsican region), and South Americas.

Although North Korea and South Korea are of similar stock, if you have ever encountered a Korean before, their natural propensity towards ACTION is quite high, when compared to other Asians.

Similarly, if one looks at the Germans, and compare with the other European stock, their natural propensity towards ACTION is similarly acute.

These peoples with a natural propensity for ACTION also seem to have a similar degree in the threshold of endurance towards pain and suffering.

Japan seems to be a nation of people that is wealthy (by Asian standards), modern, industrious and industrialized, with law and order being the guiding spirit.

Before WW-2, this was also the same set of conditions that largely allowed Japan to grow industrially to even challenge the might of the Russian Navy, and to allow them to be accepted as an equal to the Europeans in their relations in China to the extent of Japan believing themselves to be far more superior then the Europeans (or Caucasians).

With the highly secret world of Japanese Politics conducted at so many different levels behind the scene, and the interconnection of Politics with Business and Industries; who can tell how the Push-Pull effect may not trigger some genetic organism within the Japanese people to accept ACTION again ?

The study of genetics and behavior (of people or race) is a new area that has been included in the study of genetics, while much of what is written here is drawn mainly from observations of events and personal experiences in dealing and working with people from different nationalities and backgrounds, and in different settings and environments, with different pressures of work and challenges.

It is interesting how different racial groups respond in different ways to near similar situations - not so much in handling the task at hand, but in their behaviorial attitudes such as emotion, patience, temper, frustrations, span of attention, persistence.

« Previous Page Next Page »