You Know I'm Chat Thread

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by ilikeplanets

Some additions: vaccines, baby-led weaning vs purees, daycare or not, medicating fevers or not, co-sleeping, "gentle parenting", food allergens....so much to fight about. I check them weekly for the shit show! I wasn't expecting bathing to be a hot topic, though

Oh yeah vaccines!

The group I mainly stayed in was NZ based and drawn together by a concern for sustainability - so it was middle class and educated, and after a few years everyone knew each other and there was no point arguing about kid-related stuff. So the debate shifted to religion, politics etc. and I guess there was a bit of debate around whether it was abusive to raise your kid within the confines of a particular religion and force a religious identity on them; and similarly with political leaning whether it was abusive to raise a kid and drill into them particular political ideology.

But mostly the arguments were around current events rather than parenting choices, by then. And the vibe was more about encouragement than debate

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by ilikeplanets

I mean you can't eliminate one parent's undesirable biological traits through nurture

There is a longitudinal study still running in NZ that suggests this is not true. There is a genetic marker for violent criminality or something, and if you have it and also have a violent upbringing, you are four times as likely to engage in criminal violence as an adult. If you have a stable and loving upbringing, even with this genetic marker, your likelihood of engaging in criminal violence is a lot lower.

Genes are not entirely deterministic - the same genes in different environments might have differing phenotypes.

[ovary]

i don't really believe in genes. there are many areas of science that i think make claims way ahead of their understanding, and genetics is one of them. who knows what they're actually looking at in there. it's like how they used to think saturn's rings were solid, but then figure out that they're made up of particles. i think our understanding of human genetics is so limited that i don't really trust that any scientific "findings" in that area will stand up very long.

[killtrocity]

who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there

so you think your all that bc you know what they're actually looking at in there

[topleybird]

I heard the jury's still out on science.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by ovary

i don't really believe in genes. there are many areas of science that i think make claims way ahead of their understanding, and genetics is one of them. who knows what they're actually looking at in there. it's like how they used to think saturn's rings were solid, but then figure out that they're made up of particles. i think our understanding of human genetics is so limited that i don't really trust that any scientific "findings" in that area will stand up very long.

this is pretty dumb

we definitely don't understand them very well and much of the research should be looked at with caution, but there's a lot of very good, solid research in some areas. for example, the APOE gene is very good at predicting who is at a very small risk of getting Alzheimer's Disease. It's not as good at predicting who will, but it's still pretty good at that, too. https://molecularneurodegeneration.b...24-020-00413-4

Having two APOE2 genes is also associated with longevity not related to Alzheimer's, and also some bad things, so who knows what exactly is going on. But I do know if you have two APOE2 genes you're unlikely to get AD, and if you do it will probably be later than those without 2 APOE2 genes:




If you have APOE4/4 you have an approx 50% chance of having AD by age 70. P<0.0001. And you almost certainly will have it by 80.

[reprise85]

There are others like this, but this is a very well-studied area I have 2xAPOE2 so I have read a bit.

[yo soy el mejor]

this gal knows her genes!

[Disco King]

I know that Ovary likes to be facetious but I can't tell here.

Assuming he's being serious, does he mean to say that we don't know exactly what many genes do/how they interact, or that we don't really know what "genes" even are/if they are even real things?

[yo soy el mejor]

[ilikeplanets]

Originally Posted by Disco King

I know that Ovary likes to be facetious but I can't tell here.

Assuming he's being serious, does he mean to say that we don't know exactly what many genes do/how they interact, or that we don't really know what "genes" even are/if they are even real things?

I interpreted it as the latter, and ignored it

[ilikeplanets]

Right, Ovie?

[LaBelle]

.

[LaBelle]

.

[ovary]

Originally Posted by ilikeplanets

Right, Ovie?

yep yep. i dont believe in a lot of things.

[ovary]

i mean i believe scientists are seeing something that they have labeled genes but i dont believe they are what they say they are nor operate like they say they operate

[ovary]

i believe in trees a *lot* so i think on balance i am okay in terms of my magnitude of beliefs in things

[yo soy el mejor]

trees have genes, bozo!

[topleybird]

Originally Posted by ovary

i mean i believe scientists are seeing something that they have labeled genes but i dont believe they are what they say they are nor operate like they say they operate

But... why? I know there's a lot of shit published in science journals that aren't reviewed well or involve experimental results that turn out not to be reproducible/verifiable. There's been kind of a quiet uproar about this for a long time. But it kinda seems like you've zeroed in on the nature of genes specifically? Is that right? If so, do you have an alternate theory, or does the current one just like not sit right with you for reasons you can't explain, or, y'know, what's goin' on in that noggin of yours?

[yo soy el mejor]

de-ni-al yes
sci-en-ce no

[redbreegull]

Reminds me of how 28if didn’t believe in radio carbon dating

[redbreegull]

the nightly crying has begun

[ilikeplanets]

Sorry, breegz. I don't really have any great words of comfort, but don't want that kind of post to go unacknowledged. I hear you.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by ilikeplanets

Sorry, breegz. I don't really have any great words of comfort, but don't want that kind of post to go unacknowledged. I hear you.

thanks planets. you're a good bud.

[vixnix]

Have you tried getting a haircut and new clothes?

[vixnix]

Sorry. I was mocking myself with that reply. I hope that was clear. I’m sorry I don’t have any actual advice, either. I hope the crying is sort of cathartic.

[Cool As Ice Cream]

have you considered volunteering?

[ovary]

i do have some general and significant concerns with science as an epistemological method:

1. results and consensus is constantly changing. this is an intrinsic feature of science, and in some ways/instances one of its strengths. *but* it makes it difficult to trust "the current science" as a metric for truth.

2. scientific knowledge is so specialized and bureaucratized, it is difficult to translate the actual scientific consensus into terms laypeople can understand and discuss. genes, for instance, are so complex that it is really impossible for us on this board to have any kind of discussion about them at all that really relates to or reflects "the current science." we are discussing a dumbed-down version that is not accurate, but that dumbed-down version is all we have access to. this makes regular people forced to "trust" the experts. i don't trust the experts.

3. because scientific research is corrupt. this happens in blatant ways, such as the food companies' infiltration of agricultural, medical, and nutritional science, or the fact that the federal government controls most grant funding. but there are also more banal forms of corruption, such as the "publish or perish" mentality forcing individuals and labs to make sexy claims and find significant results if they want to make career progress. and there's also a lot of groupthink and social pressure to both work on certain areas and find certain results. the groupthink is exacerbated by the intense specialization and bureaucratization i mentioned earlier.

4. scientific knowledge is based philosophically in empiricism, or an assumption that the sensory devices of human beings are our best access to the truth of reality. we are now able to extend our sensory experience through technology like x-rays and telescopes and carbon dating and whatever else. i do not trust that the human senses are an accurate depiction of reality. even if i were to concede that, i think it is obvious that the human sensory experience is extremely limited and distorted. i do not trust that what we see is what is actually happening. you might say "well, the senses are all we have, so we have to trust them." yes, i agree, and i do trust that they are good enough to get along okay here on planet earth, but i think there is a lot more out there. specifically, i think that we can access to non-empirical forms of truth through imagination, theological revelation and reflection, and emotion. science has no framework to explore these apprehensions of reality, and so ignores them and often actively discounts them.

so, my issue with genes kind of fires off on all these fronts. first off, i am absolutely unable to access the scientific consensus itself without years of study that i have no interest in pursuing. i'm not going to profess belief in something i can't even begin to understand. second, scientific consensus is changing, and what i'd be studying/reading about now will likely disproven later anyway, *especially* in such a new and complex field like genetics. third, i will not put uninformed trust in "experts" because of the ways all scientific knowledge is corrupt. in the case of genetics research, i assume it's largely tied up in the interests of the pharmaceutical industries.

and finally, philosophically, what are the questions that "genetics science" can answer for me? why i look like my father? why i am an alcoholic? why i am struck with certain illnesses at certain times? there are scientific answers to those questions that involve "genes," but there are also emotional answers, imaginative answers, and theological answers. the latter are generally more useful and interesting to me.

[yo soy el mejor]

a girl i met a couple weeks ago asked me to grab coffee but i'm not big into coffee so i responded with an email asking if i could one-up her with getting lunch. she hasn't said anything yet and i just keep thinking of her saying to herself, ''that's too much time. i don't want to spend that much time with you. lunch is too intimate" and regretting asking me at all in the first place. oy!

[yo soy el mejor]

Originally Posted by Cool As Ice Cream

have you considered volunteering?

it couldn't hurt!