The racist gene

[MaGZ]

A discussion was started in another thread prompted by the question how racism could still exist. I suggested perhaps there is a racist gene which helps to perpetrate racism and a particular ethno-type. I tend to think there is something to this and only the modern era has pushed some of us against our natural instincts to accept the other into our nation and family.

[Perpetual Student]

Is there also a “religion” gene or a “superstition” gene?
I would venture that the opportunities for “racism” to be a learned cultural phenomenon are many. It persists simply because family, tribes, and cultures persist, with all their traditions, prejudices and codes.

[Doubt]

What a wonderfully blended load of rubish. No understanding of science and stupid fear all demonstrated in one short post.

Irrational fear probably has genetic component. But Ethno-types are defined by humans, not by nature.

[quarky]

I wonder what the stats are for the sum-total killing of people by other people?

I suspect that the majority of it has occurred within the same races, but I'm not certain.
Anyway, its clear that human incompatibility issues cross racial lines.
Caucasions have been killing other caucasions with more gusto than they can muster toward other races. Same with orientals. And negroes.

Its what we do; racism or not. If we were all the same race, we'd invent new distinctions so that we could keep hate alive.

(OK, I have a problem with gingers.)

[Wowbagger]

A racist meme, maybe.

But, gene? Not likely. Such behavior tends to be the emergent property of lots of genes, and there are too many combinations that could result in one becoming racist, to say there is any significant genetic factor.

As units of cultural inheritance, there could definately be classes of memes that are significantly racist in nature.

[Delvo]

Irrational fear probably has genetic component. But Ethno-types are defined by humans, not by nature.Look somewhere between those two statements. The concept here is the application of that built-in tendency for "irrational fear" (or hatred) to "ethno-types". And that does not require the "ethno-types" to be anything more than a figment of the imagination.

Caucasions have been killing other caucasions... Its what we do; racism or not. If we were all the same race, we'd invent new distinctions so that we could keep hate alive.OK, but why is it always against other humans? Why not against cows, or big rocks, or flowers?

We're all familiar with the phrase "us against them". "Them" doesn't need to be another race, but it does usually need to be another set of humans. If you're both in an ancient Greek civilization, then it could be the people of another city several miles away, or it could be the slaves against the slave-owners. If you're both Mongolian nomads, it could be another tribe whose migration path crosses a certain river at the same place where yours does at roughly the same time of year. For that matter, in mythology, look at how often monsters are not just scary animals, but either anthropomorphized in some way or hybrids, or just more powerful humans (human-looking, generally human-acting gods or giants or such). It seems that the real choice is not "us" or "them" but needs a third option to be complete: "almost us". And the third one, "almost us", is even worse than "them". If it's truly not much like us, such as most animals and plants and pottery, then nobody cares much one way or the other.

So what makes "almost us" the worst possible category? There's no established answer so far. You could suppose that it's just an inevitable result of being social and prioritizing social matters above most else in life, because your worst social enemies are bound to be human and you're probably going to think of social enemies as the worst part of your world. But the real animosity seems to usually be applied outside the social group, so I think it needs a different explanation. My idea is that it dates back to resource competition, not necessarily just between groups within the species, but even between this species and others when there still were other homonids to compete with. In that context, it makes sense to react negatively to critters that are almost like you but not quite, because they're competition. But without other homonid species around for that evolved instinct to be triggered by, it latches onto the closest thing available: other members of the same species that are still outside the "us" group, making them "not quite us".

[David Wong]

A discussion was started in another thread prompted by the question how racism could still exist. I suggested perhaps there is a racist gene which helps to perpetrate racism and a particular ethno-type. I tend to think there is something to this and only the modern era has pushed some of us against our natural instincts to accept the other into our nation and family.

So let's say that you are suffering from a genetic disorder, and that there was some kind of gene therapy that they said could cure you of your bigotry against Jews. Would you undergo that treatment? Meaning do you recognize your way of thinking as a malfunction?

You have the ability to change your own point of view, people do it all the time. So even if it turned out you were suffering from a genetic condition that increased your propensity for bigotry toward a group or groups, it seems like environmental factors (ie education and personal experience) could overcome it.

[INRM]

There are genes that make a person more likely to be religious (The DRD4 for example), and I would not be suprized if there were at least one genes if not multiple genes that play a role in irrational fear. There are genes that play a role in anxiety...

Keep in mind, there are in many cases, multiple genes that play a part in some traits. It's not always "The hot-babe gene" "the racist gene" "the athletic gene" (There are multiple genes that play a role in athletic capability -- athletic capability comes down to bodybuild, reflex-times, muscle-type, ability to predict movements, etc...)

[a_unique_person]

What a wonderfully blended load of rubish. No understanding of science and stupid fear all demonstrated in one short post.

Irrational fear probably has genetic component. But Ethno-types are defined by humans, not by nature.

I think there is a 'tribal' gene, many animals display social behaviour, and identify with their group. Our adaptable brain has extended this genetic behaviour to use such attributes as colour of the skin to be used as an identifier. However, there is no reason why this should be used as a justification of such concepts of racial purity, since these concepts are just creations of our brain and culture, and are not inherent. It is just as easy learn to not identify people as being part of your tribe according to colour.

[bpesta22]

Why would a gene for racism evolve if "races" were geographically isolated for most of human evolution?

[Delvo]

Why would a gene for racism evolve if "races" were geographically isolated for most of human evolution?Because it's actually just an anti-outsider gene, with various possible ways to define "outsider".

[casebro]

Since racism is based on the theory that some folks have socially important genetic differences, the existence of a 'racist gene' would prove the validity of racism, wouldn't it?

But I propose that , if the gene exists, and in light of this discussion, what the proper name is "Xenophobic gene". We are all cautious of outsiders, right?

[paximperium]

A discussion was started in another thread prompted by the question how racism could still exist. I suggested perhaps there is a racist gene which helps to perpetrate racism and a particular ethno-type. I tend to think there is something to this and only the modern era has pushed some of us against our natural instincts to accept the other into our nation and family.
Translation: "I claim that racism is genetic therefore I was born a racist and I'm just behaving exactly how I was born. This is my justification for my hatred towards people who are different from me."

According to MaGz since racism is apparently genetic and is inherently harmful, I would consider it a disease. We should endeavor to wipe out this scourge with gene therapy and medication.

[Doubt]

Translation: "I claim that racism is genetic therefore I was born a racist and I'm just behaving exactly how I was born. This is my justification for my hatred towards people who are different from me."

According to MaGz since racism is apparently genetic and is inherently harmful, I would consider it a disease. We should endeavor to wipe out this scourge with gene therapy and medication.

I think MaGz would prefer eugenics...

[a_unique_person]

Translation: "I claim that racism is genetic therefore I was born a racist and I'm just behaving exactly how I was born. This is my justification for my hatred towards people who are different from me."

According to MaGz since racism is apparently genetic and is inherently harmful, I would consider it a disease. We should endeavor to wipe out this scourge with gene therapy and medication.

The history of the human race has seen a lot of woeful events. That we find it very difficult to act collectively as a species peacefully is pretty self evident. I think if an alien race arrived here today, they would be wondering why a single species that can all procreate together, can have so much hatred and distrust over minor differences.

[arthwollipot]

There are genes that make a person more likely to be religious (The DRD4 for example), and I would not be suprized if there were at least one genes if not multiple genes that play a role in irrational fear. There are genes that play a role in anxiety...

Keep in mind, there are in many cases, multiple genes that play a part in some traits. It's not always "The hot-babe gene" "the racist gene" "the athletic gene" (There are multiple genes that play a role in athletic capability -- athletic capability comes down to bodybuild, reflex-times, muscle-type, ability to predict movements, etc...)It's worth noting here that unless one redefines the word "gene" as Dawkins does in the first few pages of The Selfish Gene, there are no genes for racism, religion, athletic capacity, etc. There are not even genes for blue eyes. A gene is a stretch of DNA that, when transposed into RNA and read by the ribosome, produces a protein.

There are no genes for long legs, brown hair or racism. There are only genes for proteins.

[INRM]

The "Tribal" gene might have some merit. However, this might not be just one gene. It could involve multiple genes which play a role in the part.

Plus you have to take into account that you have environmental factors. There are people who earlier in life were not racist, and then became racist later on. And the reverse has happened.

[Lothian]

A discussion was started in another thread prompted by the question how racism could still exist. I suggested perhaps there is a racist gene which helps to perpetrate racism and a particular ethno-type. I tend to think there is something to this and only the modern era has pushed some of us against our natural instincts to accept the other into our nation and family.I agree with you there might be a mutant gene which makes someone racist. However the side effects are such that the carrier is less likely to propagate the mutation to the next generation so don’t worry we should see less and less of them.
Don't worry I see where you are coming from and I agree with you that there are merits in sterilising racists but I think it is only fair to let nature have a chance first.

[plumjam]

Few people are aware that there's also a Gene gene.
Carriers can often be seen dancing in the rain while twirling their umbrellas, acting as accountants for dodgy musical producers, hanging off American trains, and singing about being 24 hours away from the town of Tulsa. Behaviours exemplified by Gene Kelly, Gene Wilder and Gene Pitney, respectively.

[plumjam]

I forgot to add that there is also a gene which causes people to want to blame their own moral failings and bad habits on their genes. Monsanto recently synthesised this gene and offer an implantation service to the few remaining percent of the population who still entertain the fantasy that they don't carry the gene and are therefore morally responsible for their own actions.

[Dancing David]

A discussion was started in another thread prompted by the question how racism could still exist. I suggested perhaps there is a racist gene which helps to perpetrate racism and a particular ethno-type. I tend to think there is something to this and only the modern era has pushed some of us against our natural instincts to accept the other into our nation and family.


There are reasons that people make foolish associations, in many contexts. No need for a specific gene for a specific form of foolishness, just the consequences of associative learning.

You don't understand genetics and social culture do you?

[Dancing David]

Gosh this thread is just awash in sloppy thinking about humans, no instincts people. No instincts after the age of six weeks. Okay?

[a_unique_person]

Gosh this thread is just awash in sloppy thinking about humans, no instincts people. No instincts after the age of six weeks. Okay?

Many mammals display groups behaviour. Why not humans?

[Dancing David]

Many mammals display groups behaviour. Why not humans?

That does not mean that they are ingrained biological properties, they are learned, conditioned behaviors. So to say there is a biological basis for the behavior without looking to the biology is suspect, especially in humans.

Name the group behavior, then we can discuss the basis of what biological mechanism is involved, in humans there are quirks of biology that can effect behevior, but there is a huge predominant learned layer of behavior.

So when you talk about the 'sense of other', that comes about through social transmission almost totaly. The patterns of behavior are taught and learned by the younger memebers from the elders and peers, they are not inate.

Take something like 'personal' spave vs. 'social' space and displays of 'politeness' is something like a checkout line/queue at a store, they vary widely based upon culture and social learning. There is not a biological 'set distance of comfort from a stranger', it is learned and conditioned.

(That is what I mean, not that there is not a biological basis for behavior.)

[Smackety]

A discussion was started in another thread prompted by the question how racism could still exist. I suggested perhaps there is a racist gene which helps to perpetrate racism and a particular ethno-type. I tend to think there is something to this and only the modern era has pushed some of us against our natural instincts to accept the other into our nation and family.

I think it is a rogue Neaderthal gene that still gets expressed now and then: it also lowers IQ by about 50 points.

[Delvo]

no instincts people. No instincts after the age of six weeks. Okay?Not okay. Before I'll buy that, I need to see some reason not to think of these basic motivations as instinctive:

1. Seeking food
2. Seeking water/beverages
3. Seeking safety (avoiding danger)
4. Seeking sex
5. Seeking socialization

[G O R T]

But I propose that , if the gene exists, and in light of this discussion, what the proper name is "Xenophobic gene". We are all cautious of outsiders, right?

Xenophobia is just one of many survival traits that we carry, this type is probably due to a combination of genes that determine the physical expression of our neural capabilities. Any animal with cognitive ability will develop these under survival pressures. Greed, selfishness, and gluttony describe a similar trait that is also tailored to social group self-identification. The groups are: self first, then family, then ones local social group, then ones identifiable phenotype. The survival traits mentioned so far are intellectually identified as immoral traits. There are also moral traits like defence of the young or injured.

[Dancing David]

Not okay. Before I'll buy that, I need to see some reason not to think of these basic motivations as instinctive:

1. Seeking food
2. Seeking water/beverages
3. Seeking safety (avoiding danger)
4. Seeking sex
5. Seeking socialization

Well, we can talk if you want, what is the basis of those drives?

Stimulus, choice, consequence to choice, conditioning.

Instincts are hard wired behaviors that are stereo typic or inflexible, they will be the same for all members of a species in response to a similar set of biological states, such as the male cat 'toe walk' in sexualized behavior, or mating dances in fish.

These are unlearned behaviors, they exist in the hard wiring of the critter. Strangely (and part of what may make humans what they are) is that humans have very few neonate skills, we do not have the partial hardwiring like most unglates that makes them learn walking within hours of birth. So they have a partly hardwired walking and partly learned walking set of behaviors. Compared to humans the walking is much more hard wired.

As you say 'seeking safety', that is not a hard wired , that is learned, things like a 'startle response' are largely unconditioned but avoiding danger is a learned behavior. Babies do not have an innate fear of much, they will respond to certain stimuli and develop choices based upon consequences.

That is what I mean.

Now discomfort such as hunger, thirst has a biological basis as does sex drive (there are some people who seem to have zero), pain avoidance, lonliness is more complex in that there is an array of states involved in that.

[Dancing David]

Any animal with cognitive ability will develop these under survival pressures.


How would you demonstrate that?

look at ants and tell me what you think.

Simple behaviors that look socially complex.

Humans learn.

[KingMerv00]

Racist gene? Sure, why not? Lots of diseases are hereditary.