In this context I'm one of those neurotic angsties you mentioned. Biological determinism and categorical thinking of many sorts really get my goat. Maybe I need to recalibrate my sniffer but I thought I caught some whiffs of this stuff in your first comment.
As a "mutt" with some German ancestry, some Jewish ancestry, some colonizer ancestors, some colonized ancestors, some who fled, some who dominated, I've thought long and hard about these topics, about what happened last century. I'm neurotic for good reason. Because there's danger here, especially in being overly confident about any single totalizing framework.
I've been told I shouldn't dance because of how I look. But then when I kept dancing anyway, others affirmed me and my rhythm. Who was right?
The omnigenic model suggests that even when there are observable genetic associations, they're probably very dynamic.
Who among us has the wisdom and authority to tell an individual exactly where they belong, where they fit, how they fit, what path to choose? A brand new individual whose genetic combinations and environmental context have never been seen before? A whole new being in an ever-emerging world?
Especially in times of upheaval and shifts I believe we need to keep our minds and hearts open.
I agree with you that new tools could provide insight and benefit, but there's ridiculous potential for abuse, for rationalizing and normalizing collective habits of domination old and new, for reinforcement of stereotypes and limiting beliefs.
> categorical thinking of many sorts really get my goat
This also makes my blood boil, should we share so much in common somehow.
Race (still) has nothing to do with any of the GWAS studies, and this has been discussed in length since far before we started hooking up supercomputers to personality studies. These are discussing large differences in the chemical computers in our body that take possibly 100's of times or more longer to evolve than the amount of melanin in your skin or the shape of your nose would have evolved, and have evidently stayed that way for several 100's of thousands of years due to assortative mating.
So, given how literally every society ever tested all the way down to remote African tribes has all this exact same genetic diversity, would it not imply that this exact same distributed diversity is necessary for a healthy society to function?
Is it too difficult to imagine that certain groups of people, who we can't just use our eyes to pick out, are at greater risk from, say, macroeconomic shifts, which hampers their ability to be efficacious and extract favorable outcomes from the environment, has consequences even to certain groups that have it good?
Seems unbelievably great that we have all the data to prove all these emotionally dysregulated and life-hating schizoid racists wrong and be able to better labor distribution to improve individual and societal efficacy, but some anxieties are holding it back?
Here's an idea, you can easily prove the genetic determinism believers wrong by maintaining healthy boundaries and not internalizing other people's own self-destructive issues >:)
As a "mutt" with some German ancestry, some Jewish ancestry, some colonizer ancestors, some colonized ancestors, some who fled, some who dominated, I've thought long and hard about these topics, about what happened last century. I'm neurotic for good reason. Because there's danger here, especially in being overly confident about any single totalizing framework.
I've been told I shouldn't dance because of how I look. But then when I kept dancing anyway, others affirmed me and my rhythm. Who was right?
Guess I can relate to this guy: https://youtu.be/XGMIEDlOT_I
The omnigenic model suggests that even when there are observable genetic associations, they're probably very dynamic.
Who among us has the wisdom and authority to tell an individual exactly where they belong, where they fit, how they fit, what path to choose? A brand new individual whose genetic combinations and environmental context have never been seen before? A whole new being in an ever-emerging world?
Especially in times of upheaval and shifts I believe we need to keep our minds and hearts open.
I agree with you that new tools could provide insight and benefit, but there's ridiculous potential for abuse, for rationalizing and normalizing collective habits of domination old and new, for reinforcement of stereotypes and limiting beliefs.