Is culture a manifestation of biology?

[Stefan]

This is a pretty simple question. I know many people have a variety of opinions on this, so I'd like to make this thread for them to present their argument. A poll will be attached as well, with these three options:

1. Culture is a manifestation of biology, solely.

2. Culture is independent of - and separate from - biology.

3. There is a correlation between culture and biology, but it isn't 1:1.

[Virtuous]

What if it's also related to the type of ambient these cultures live in?

[Stefan]

What if it's also related to the type of ambient these cultures live in?

If you believe such, then the first option would not apply. I agree however, there are environment factors to consider as well.

[Anarch]

I do subscribe to the belief that culture is a complex extended phenotype.

[carol]

I think it may be about 50/50. Culture is certainly learned- for example, you and I are both reasonably educated individuals, both bright, both American. I am first generation on my father's side, however, having been raised in America,it has become very apparent to me that some of my values have been completely Americanized, in one short generation, even though I have had considerable European contact, and have relatives there. My mother is completely genetically Dutch, and yet her behavior is American.
However, I do believe there is a strong biological basis as well. For example, in the little Dutch community where she was raised, people are soft spoken and polite. There is much less crime. The community is clean, people take care of their homes. If you look at the crime stats here in the US, there is a direct correlation to criminal activity and genetic and cultural background-even though people have lived here for generations, and have lost much of the European cultural values they still have a tendency to follow some behaviors that appear to be inborn.
I am not a racist, but is is very apparent that certain cultures value civilized behaviors. It s not racism to point out the differences between groups of people. However there are always exceptions in every group, so I think it wrong to label a person based upon his culture/genetics.
On a new note, I think the European ethnic mixes we have in the US- such as UK and German, for example, has added greatly to our country. We don't have the problems with people here thinking, for example: "Dutch people are superior to German people" or any other European group. We may joke on occasion, but a part of our strength as a country is completely based upon the ability for European Americans to intermarry and join forces. How strong a country would we be, if we lived in separate little groups and never inter married? Too much inbreeding in a very small population is not healthy, in my opinion. So, a German/Irish American marries a Dutch/Swiss American, and their children have the added benefits of the mix. I also think those mixes make very pretty children too, the "American look" is often seen as very attractive, (and often have good teeth as a bonus) Of course, I am certain I will hear a lot about this opinion. :) However I believe that our American European mix is part of our strength as a country.

[Stefan]

So far this is unanimous. You guys do understand that the last option is kind of the definition of a racialist, unless you don't believe in race. ;)

[Contra Mundum]

I voted #1, but only as a protest against those who believe biology has no influence. We've been brainwashed with that garbage since childhood. #3 more accurately reflects my view.

Biology certainly plays the dominant role. You can take someone out of Africa and basically "train them" in a new culture, but many times they still struggle. I think Islam is somewhat biologically based. That's why European Muslims aren't as radical as those in other parts of the world. It wasn't as readily embraced as Christianity, which values the individual more. Christianity was a better fit with European values.

[carol]

So far this is unanimous. You guys do understand that the last option is kind of the definition of a racialist, unless you don't believe in race. ;)

But I don't WANT to be a racialist. :pout:
Here is how I see it. As an example, men have more aggressive behaviors than women, it is a fact. ( look at violent crime, and sexual offenses) However, I don't feel a bias against all men! ( in fact, I really like men :love:) Their biology is just how they are built, and I accept that in public, I have to avoid some situations that some few men are more likely to exploit- ( men being the vast majority of rapists for example) but I would be physically safer, for example, in a dorm filled with women.
However, I think most men are wonderful! I wouldn't hate all men based upon the fact that men are statistically more likely to hurt me. How very unreasonable would I be to have an anti male bias, even though it is a fact that men are aggressive.

Being biased against an ethnic group is like that to me. I have met some wonderful, smart multi racial people. However, I wouldn't walk don't the street in the inner city that is known for thugs and gangs. because some groups of people are more likely to have thugs. If it is nature, nurture, culture or genetics, it is simply a fact. That does not make me racist, because I am able to separate good people from bad people based upon them as individuals, and not judge them from appearances. It is not a contradiction, just good sense.

[Stefan]

Well I'm sure most racialists don't believe ALL people of other races are incompetent, just it is at higher frequencies. Racists on the other hand are a bit more extreme, but even still, I doubt most racists think ALL people of other races are incompetent. Like you said, it's a matter of frequencies. I'd like to mention that the morphological differences between races are ten times greater than the morphological differences between sexes, who's to say that the same isn't true for neurology? ;)

[Tony]

I don't think we can measure in percentage what nature and nurture contribute for.
I just think they give different contributions.
Biology sets the range, from a minimum to a maximun.
And then it's up to your experience, character, parental influence, schoolin' curriculum etc that is to say nurture, how much you move INSIDE your biological range.

[carol]

Well I'm sure most racialists don't believe ALL people of other races are incompetent, just it is at higher frequencies. Racists on the other hand are a bit more extreme, but even still, I doubt most racists think ALL people of other races are incompetent. Like you said, it's a matter of frequencies. I'd like to mention that the morphological differences between races are ten times greater than the morphological differences between sexes, who's to say that the same isn't true for neurology? ;)

difference does not have a moral value- it is simply difference. A lot of genetic traits, and our genetic code, are just junk DNA, from what I have been taught, and it seems likely that a lot of the neurological differences may be as well. Until I am taught otherwise.

I still think I define myself in other terms, and do not describe myself as racialist. I hope to develop a much more complex perspective, based upon science, reality, humanity, and kindness. My friends are judged by their good character, and so are my neighbors.

[Talvi]

I think culture is a manifestation of nature, at least in its origin.

[StonyArabia]

No it's not. Culture is manifestation of environment. Certainly I am more similar in culture to an Anglo-Canadian than I am to a North Caucasian or a Middle Easterner, although these both have some impact, but in the whole scheme of things it's rather minor. Biology has nothing to do with it. You can take an Arabian from the Desert and culturally assimilate him if he is willing, you can put a Nordic in that same Desert and the same would happen.

[Stefan]

No it's not. Culture is manifestation of environment. Certainly I am more similar in culture to an Anglo-Canadian than I am to a North Caucasian or a Middle Easterner, although these both have some impact, but in the whole scheme of things it's rather minor. Biology has nothing to do with it. You can take an Arabian from the Desert and culturally assimilate him if he is willing, you can put a Nordic in that same Desert and the same would happen.

What about the origination of new cultures. Would an African population had developed the same cultural elements as Europeans if they were placed in the environment of Europe? I don't think they would, at least not without thousands of years of evolution and similar movement from neighboring populations.

[Stefan]

difference does not have a moral value- it is simply difference. A lot of genetic traits, and our genetic code, are just junk DNA, from what I have been taught, and it seems likely that a lot of the neurological differences may be as well. Until I am taught otherwise.
.

These are manifested phenotypes though, and hence not junk DNA. Neurological differences will have their advantages and disadvantages, as we've seen between sexes and at a much larger degree -- races.

[carol]

These are manifested phenotypes though, and hence not junk DNA. Neurological differences will have their advantages and disadvantages, as we've seen between sexes and at a much larger degree -- races.

manifested phenotypes can be caused by junk dna. It is very complicated, but current theories consider both options:
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1097&context=bio_fac&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt %26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dcan%2520manifested%2520phenotypes %2520be%2520caused%2520by%2520junk%2520dna%26sourc e%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26ved%3D0CE8QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.calpoly.edu%252Fcgi%252 Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1097%2526context% 253Dbio_fac%26ei%3Dw60qUK3FG-mD7AHeigE%26usg%3DAFQjCNH1gQ1stcTVBZ25cRo-HNv1RX6wUQ#search=%22can%20manifested%20phenotypes %20caused%20by%20junk%20dna%22

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/gb-2004-5-4-105.pdf

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/19/4264.short

[Stefan]

manifested phenotypes can be caused by junk dna. It is very complicated, but current theories consider both options:
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1097&context=bio_fac&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt %26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dcan%2520manifested%2520phenotypes %2520be%2520caused%2520by%2520junk%2520dna%26sourc e%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26ved%3D0CE8QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.calpoly.edu%252Fcgi%252 Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1097%2526context% 253Dbio_fac%26ei%3Dw60qUK3FG-mD7AHeigE%26usg%3DAFQjCNH1gQ1stcTVBZ25cRo-HNv1RX6wUQ#search=%22can%20manifested%20phenotypes %20caused%20by%20junk%20dna%22

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/gb-2004-5-4-105.pdf

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/19/4264.short

I think a distinction should be made between "junk DNA" and "non-coding" DNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA


In evolutionary biology and molecular biology, junk DNA is a provisional label for the portions of the DNA sequence of a chromosome or a genome for which no function has been identified.


Not to be confused with Noncoding DNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA


In genetics, noncoding DNA describes components of an organism's DNA sequences that do not encode for protein sequences. In many eukaryotes, a large percentage of an organism's total genome size is noncoding DNA, although the amount of noncoding DNA, and the proportion of coding versus noncoding DNA varies greatly between species.


Much of this DNA has no known biological function and is sometimes referred to as "junk DNA". However, many types of noncoding DNA sequences do have known biological functions, including the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences. Other noncoding sequences have likely, but as-yet undetermined, functions (this is inferred from high levels of homology and conservation seen in sequences that do not encode proteins but, nonetheless, appear to be under heavy selective pressure). While this indicates that noncoding DNA should not be indiscriminately referred to as junk DNA, the lack of sequence conservation in a majority of noncoding DNA with no known function indicates that much of it may indeed be without function.

[carol]

I think a distinction should be made between "junk DNA" and "non-coding" DNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA

Granted, you are correct. It was sloppy of me. Teachers used both terms, often interchangeably though.
Oh, and don't use Wikipedia as a scholarly input, you know the drill, scholarly, peer reviewed. Not being critical, just if we are going to go into genetics and neuro-bio, lets stick to peer reviewed data? Saves all sorts of trouble.

[Contra Mundum]

No it's not. Culture is manifestation of environment. Certainly I am more similar in culture to an Anglo-Canadian than I am to a North Caucasian or a Middle Easterner, although these both have some impact, but in the whole scheme of things it's rather minor. Biology has nothing to do with it. You can take an Arabian from the Desert and culturally assimilate him if he is willing, you can put a Nordic in that same Desert and the same would happen.

So culture wasn't created by human beings, it descended upon us from the heavens?

[Stefan]

So culture wasn't created by human beings, it descended upon us from the heavens?

Yep, it sure did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel). :P

Damn egalitarian religions ruin everything logical. :D

[StonyArabia]

So culture wasn't created by human beings, it descended upon us from the heavens?

No it was created by the environment, which shaped the course of that specific culture to that particular group of people. Anyone can adopt a culture it's rather a very fliexable. Each group will have culture based on the natural conditions the extreme opposites like the Inuits and Bedouins are examples, nothing more and nothing less to it.

[ficuscarica]

Option 3. The environment formed the culture, but also the genetics of those who have that culture.

[spaz]

My stupid answer would be that cultures originate from groups of people, who are biological organisms, so of course, it stems from biology. I think the greater impact is environment, because each culture is tailored to the environment it originated from, much like the people.

Unless you mean a single individual's cultural habits, which I would say are learned from the environment they grow up in, or whatever they're exposed to, but also influenced by genetics.

[carol]

Yep, it sure did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel). :P

Damn egalitarian religions ruin everything logical. :D

:D:D

[Contra Mundum]

No it was created by the environment, which shaped the course of that specific culture to that particular group of people. Anyone can adopt a culture it's rather a very fliexable. Each group will have culture based on the natural conditions the extreme opposites like the Inuits and Bedouins are examples, nothing more and nothing less to it.

I completely disagree with that. I do not believe if black Africans were dropped in an uninhabited Europe, that they would create anything remotely like the cultures of Europe today. Blacks and whites are biologically different, and they think differently.

[Stefan]

I completely disagree with that. I do not believe if black Africans were dropped in an uninhabited Europe, that they would create anything remotely like the cultures of Europe today. Blacks and whites are biologically different, and they think differently.

Just look at Liberia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia). They were Americanized, and yet they're still quite African today. Liberia is one of the nicer SSA countries though, which I think has much to do with their American-like political system. :)

[Lithium]

The culture is a manifestation of people's potential, manners and imagination.

[Contra Mundum]

When Clarence Thomas was a young man in law school, he said he responded to whites with the following "I'm just trying to survive in your world" when they asked him how he was doing. It's a struggle for many blacks to adapt to a culture than is so alien to them. Thomas seems to have succeeded though. Biology can be overcome in some cases.