Ah, the human condition. As science rolls on, despite attempts by various ideological bastions to regress us all back beyond the Enlightenment, more and more human behaviour is understood as inherent, pre-programmed, if you like. No field in science has galloped ahead in understanding in the recent decade like genetics. The research was even given a name - "The Human Genome Project". The understanding of the role and influence of DNA is dragging all sorts of facets of the human condition under the umbrella of DNA determination.
The science has moved well beyond attributing physical characteristics or predetermination of disease and illness risk to a person's DNA. It is now well into the realm of psychology and behaviour.
I read the following piece in last Satdee's Age. I recalled reading it after some of the discussion in this thread, so I went back and reread it last night. It's not a long article - it doesn't need to be. A taste;
"Subjects who had a specific form of a gene in which certain amino acids are missing, found in about half of Caucasians, had a heightened awareness of negative stimuli. For instance, these people might look down a busy city street and catch the shady character hanging out by the ATM rather than the jubilant children playing in the park. Or during a hike, they would focus on the slippery rocks instead of the scenery."
Read more:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/the-gene-sc ... z2hutyAZ00
So, different people see the same complex scenario and come to different conclusions, even if they have exactly the same vantage point. In the case of our particular "disarray" under discussion atm, we have a whole lot of people reaching different conclusions WITHOUT having the same vantage points. Economists use the term "Multiplier Effect" in a number of downstream impact assessments of upstream inputs. It wouldn't be a stretch to apply the same term in scenarios like this, whereby the different vantage points of (e.g.) Jaxons and Tony, multiplied by possible DNA differences, lead them to diverging opinions (conclusions) about the reality and importance of what they have seen (even by the spoken relaying of other individuals' processing of their observations or received information, via their own DNA driven psychology).
The multiplication is furthered, compounded, when someone with a higher access to disseminate (e.g. Caro) emails someone like the fella at Bigfooty, asks him to tell her what he "knows", and then gives that individual's information processing, from his vantage point, via his genetic make up, greater credence. I could then go on to how someone like the fella at Bigfooty is then incentivised by Caro's acknowledgement, and how his DNA embedded response to Caro's "reward" might well be to accentuate his need to reach even bigger conclusions off even less substantial information, so as to receive further validation (reward) from a Caro.
I recall Richard Dawkins talking to the scientist who mapped his DNA (Dawkins was the 8th person on the planet to be fully mapped). The scientist asked if Dawkins smoked. Dawkins said no and asked if his map showed a genetic propensity to develop cancer. The scientist replied no, but that it did show a genetic propensity to WANT to smoke.
All that's just a further explanation as to why I'm happy to, and need to, rely on the board of the footy club to get hold of the maximum amount of information, from the broadest range of inputs and perspectives, decide what to do and do it.
It's also why I avoid placing much store in snippets or individual perspectives. Simply put, the science says such a process is unreliable.
And, I like science 'cos it explains so much.
'I have no new illusions, and I have no old illusions' - Vladimir Putin, Geneva, June 2021
