> Reed wrote:
>
>
> I assert: For the vast majority of people (95%) genetics plays little or
> no role in memetic development.
>
> ------------------------
>
> Strangely enough, I was discussing this with some friends the other day, during
> a conversation debating Foetal Research. Apparently, it has become possible
> for geneticists to test the unborn child for social and physical traits, which
> could be "abnormal"! This includes things such as Alcoholism, and Criminality.
> Therefore, does it not seem reasonable that as these things are controlled by
> genes, then memes which can infect the mind are also more prevalent in different
> genetic codes? For example, one with a Criminal gene is likely to be more
> susceptable to "criminal" memes, and less so to "law abiding" memes!
>
> On what grounds do you base your assertion?
>
> If anyone can correct me on the above information, feel free, but that's what I
> heard.
>
> Drakir
> -------------
> Richard Jones
> jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com
> -------------
> "We are the New Breed,
> We are the Future."
> -------------
I was doing incidental research [trying to locate a paper, which I never
did find] when I found this:
Resistance to classical conditioning techniques correlated with an
electric-potential response anomaly in the skin, and with resistance to
"peer pressure" which resulted in atypical behavior relative to the
norming group. When the norming group is law-abiding, this increased the
chances of "criminal behavior".
So far, most genes relating to mental side-effects should be thought of
as "biasing" genes.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////