Monday, June 29, 2009
Michael Jackson
What could I possibly say about the legendary Michael Jackson that hasn't already been said, or won't be said by someone else soon enough?For those among the 4 readers of this blog who are into studying Myers-Briggs types, I typed Michael as ISFP, which is also my own type. I imagine I have some insight into him that not every sold-out network anchorperson seems to have.
He was a train wreck, all along. He just had a native talent that burned so brightly that so many of us wanted to overlook the disaster that was already staring us in the face in the early 1980s.
The thing that makes me want to throw stuff at my TV (though I don't, it's too expensive) is seeing headlines like these:
Joe Jackson: Michael's Children "Belong" With Us (US Weekly)Joe Jackson, as the father of the Jackson clan, notoriously "hard-driving," and accused of various abuses, is kind of a prime suspect for being not only Michael Jackson's biological sire, but also the key progenitor of the emotional and spiritual trainwreck (and alleged victimizer in his own right) that MJ was to become. Whatever the truth of those suspicions and allegations may be, I can't imagine his self-promotion in recent days will do a lot to rehabilitate his image with the discerning public.
Joe Jackson, Michael Jackson's hard-driving father, returns to the spotlight with son's death (StarTribune.com)
Joe is singing Michael's praises now, in a proud (and proprietary) way, when giving news conferences and appearing at the BET awards, hogging camera time, and promoting his record label. I saw him eulogize Michael in a way that reminded me somehow of Richard Nixon's "Checkers" speech in 1960.
I hope they find somewhere else to stick those kids. Under a freeway overpass somewhere might be an improvement.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Aggression Gene
In today's science news, there's an article entitled "Boys May Feel a Genetic Pull Towards Gangs." (Note: please let me know if this link ever breaks.)
As is often the case, I'm thinking "Thank you for this introduction to the obvious." Our genes code for all our potentials, right? Boys May Feel a Genetic Pull Towards Sex. Girls May Feel a Genetic Pull Towards Boys. People May Feel a Genetic Pull Towards Chocolate Cake. Birds May Feel a Genetic Pull Towards Flying. Land-Based Vertebrates May Feel a Genetic Pull Towards Breathing.
Scientists have isolated a particular gene that's to blame for boys being "bad":
Is this gene a random mutation without any evolutionary benefit, like most disease-causing genetic variations tend to be? Surely not. It had a purpose, in the tribal environment in and for which our ancestors evolved. In a environment involving life-and-death competition with nature, with other species, and with other tribes and individuals, having a certain number of warriors in the mix increased the odds of survival. Of course, if all of a tribe's members were warrior types, that might cause some problems too... for example, infighting, too many hunters and not enough gatherers, too many rapers and pillagers and not enough producers, no one to wash the urns or sweep the floors, etc. But if the whole tribe were gentle as lambs... Well, witness the European conquest of a number of relatively peaceful aboriginal tribes around the world.
Christopher Columbus, as quoted by Howard Zinn in A People's History of the United States:
Historically, in a competitive, warlike environment, there was survival value in having a few warrior genes floating around, and no doubt the more competitive and warlike the environment, the more of these warrior variants would be needed.
In nature, evolution, also known as "natural selection," is not believed by most evolutionary scientists to be a process that is conscious. It's just what happens to work in a given environment. And environments change... e.g., a peaceful tropical island without any Christopher Columbus one day changes into a less-peaceful tropical island with Christopher Columbus, and what used to work well doesn't work as well any more. In natural evolution, nature isn't saying a particular gene is "good" or "bad" in any abstract/moral sense. (We do that part.) It's just about how well-matched it is for whatever environment it's in.
Of course I wonder what the relative prevalence of this warrior gene may be in my own country of origin, the United States, which, regardless of how the fact is justified, explained, euphemized, or simply denied, is the current world leader in warfare. However, US warfare is a little different than prehistoric tribal warfare. A lot of it happens at a distance, with the killing capacity of each soldier amplified and extended by technological means. To mobilize the United States for war in the modern era is more a matter of mass psychological herding, and somewhat less a matter of relying on aggressive alpha warriors. And the war machine needs more engineers, managers, logistical specialists, and hordes of non-military taxpayers to support it than it actually needs warriors. So even for this intensive war-making mass culture, the need for warrior-gene-affected individuals may be less.
So having the warrior gene may now be categorized as a disorder, at least in the average person, along with other unwanted traits like alcoholism, bipolar disorder, or "ADHD." Now that we have isolated this gene, we will soon have opportunities to select it out (or in), to engineer it, and/or to counteract its action with an assortment of patented, expensive, FDA-approved medications with dubious efficacy and modes of action, and of course a host of "uncommon" but really scary side effects.
Will we lose anything important if we eliminate or attenuate these troublesome warrior genes floating around in our genepool? That's a value judgment. What do you think? It may make people better suited to function harmoniously in a mass-culture environment. It may help them be A students, productive employees, dutiful taxpayers, credulous Fox News viewers, or nationalistic "patriots." Put another way, it will help them be fine herd animals, more easily led, sheared, and slaughtered as the need arises.
Speaking more generally, I see an X factor in humankind, and I appreciate it. It's the element that resists being herded. It's the part that will rebel, that just says "fuck it." As soon as a rule is made, someone will break it in short order. We do the "wrong" thing. We have the capacity to destroy. We destroy works, systems, the environment, each other, ourselves. But destruction is part of creation. And that same X factor is tied to innovation, independence, invention, inspiration, vision, and revolution. Delete it at your peril. My warning to you.
I speak as someone who has had a really hard time conforming to external expectations and norms at times. I've struggled with school, authority, rules, routines, bureacracy, schedules, et cetera ad nauseam. I'm sure if I go see a doctor and ask to be evaluated for "attention deficit disorder," they'll certainly find it. I could say I'm anxious at times, or depressed, or whatever. Alcohol, when I used to drink it, made me insane. Sugar does something similar. My list of traits that could be diagnosed as mental "disorders" is long, and the list of medications I could be taking considerably longer.
But in spite of my X factors, and also because of them, I've made my way, found my path, achieved some success by some measures. When I'm true to myself, and when I say "fuck it" to a lot of the external expectations and standards, the depression and anxiety eases, my natural interests and inclinations emerge, and I find I do have contributions to make.
If I had a "warrior" child, I wouldn't be in a great hurry to see him "treated," medicated, or genetically modified. Before I went to those lengths, I'd want to try some other, more classical remedies-- for example, attention, dialog, consciousness, respect, self-awareness, role modeling, spiritual awareness, and love. Worth a try. The dangers of the warrior gene seem obvious enough, but I think it still has potential benefit and purpose now, as it did in our tribal past... if its carriers are informed, inspired, understood, and cared for properly. When we continue to drop the ball in those areas, yes, there will be a need for interventions, medications, social workers, police, hospitals, mental institutions, and jails.
I'm not necessarily saying that it's the "warrior gene" that also codes for independent thought, innovation, etc. Just that there might be a connection between this potentially hazardous gene and some other desirable traits that we might miss if we weed it out. It's part of the fabric of that makes humanity what it is. Think carefully before trying to cut it out.
As is often the case, I'm thinking "Thank you for this introduction to the obvious." Our genes code for all our potentials, right? Boys May Feel a Genetic Pull Towards Sex. Girls May Feel a Genetic Pull Towards Boys. People May Feel a Genetic Pull Towards Chocolate Cake. Birds May Feel a Genetic Pull Towards Flying. Land-Based Vertebrates May Feel a Genetic Pull Towards Breathing.
Scientists have isolated a particular gene that's to blame for boys being "bad":
Boys who have a variant of the gene monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) -- otherwise known as the 'warrior gene' -- are not only more likely to be in gangs than boys without the variant, but they tend to be among the most violent members. (Source: Yahoo News)It is interesting, though not terribly surprising, that a "warrior gene" could be located. I hadn't heard that news before, but apparently, "[p]revious research found that the 'warrior gene' is more prevalent in cultures that are typified by warfare and aggression."
Is this gene a random mutation without any evolutionary benefit, like most disease-causing genetic variations tend to be? Surely not. It had a purpose, in the tribal environment in and for which our ancestors evolved. In a environment involving life-and-death competition with nature, with other species, and with other tribes and individuals, having a certain number of warriors in the mix increased the odds of survival. Of course, if all of a tribe's members were warrior types, that might cause some problems too... for example, infighting, too many hunters and not enough gatherers, too many rapers and pillagers and not enough producers, no one to wash the urns or sweep the floors, etc. But if the whole tribe were gentle as lambs... Well, witness the European conquest of a number of relatively peaceful aboriginal tribes around the world.
Christopher Columbus, as quoted by Howard Zinn in A People's History of the United States:
Our hero, "discovering" America. A sweetheart of a guy."They...brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned...They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance...They would make fine servants...With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.
"As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first Island which I found, I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts."
Historically, in a competitive, warlike environment, there was survival value in having a few warrior genes floating around, and no doubt the more competitive and warlike the environment, the more of these warrior variants would be needed.
In nature, evolution, also known as "natural selection," is not believed by most evolutionary scientists to be a process that is conscious. It's just what happens to work in a given environment. And environments change... e.g., a peaceful tropical island without any Christopher Columbus one day changes into a less-peaceful tropical island with Christopher Columbus, and what used to work well doesn't work as well any more. In natural evolution, nature isn't saying a particular gene is "good" or "bad" in any abstract/moral sense. (We do that part.) It's just about how well-matched it is for whatever environment it's in.
Of course I wonder what the relative prevalence of this warrior gene may be in my own country of origin, the United States, which, regardless of how the fact is justified, explained, euphemized, or simply denied, is the current world leader in warfare. However, US warfare is a little different than prehistoric tribal warfare. A lot of it happens at a distance, with the killing capacity of each soldier amplified and extended by technological means. To mobilize the United States for war in the modern era is more a matter of mass psychological herding, and somewhat less a matter of relying on aggressive alpha warriors. And the war machine needs more engineers, managers, logistical specialists, and hordes of non-military taxpayers to support it than it actually needs warriors. So even for this intensive war-making mass culture, the need for warrior-gene-affected individuals may be less.
So having the warrior gene may now be categorized as a disorder, at least in the average person, along with other unwanted traits like alcoholism, bipolar disorder, or "ADHD." Now that we have isolated this gene, we will soon have opportunities to select it out (or in), to engineer it, and/or to counteract its action with an assortment of patented, expensive, FDA-approved medications with dubious efficacy and modes of action, and of course a host of "uncommon" but really scary side effects.
Will we lose anything important if we eliminate or attenuate these troublesome warrior genes floating around in our genepool? That's a value judgment. What do you think? It may make people better suited to function harmoniously in a mass-culture environment. It may help them be A students, productive employees, dutiful taxpayers, credulous Fox News viewers, or nationalistic "patriots." Put another way, it will help them be fine herd animals, more easily led, sheared, and slaughtered as the need arises.
Speaking more generally, I see an X factor in humankind, and I appreciate it. It's the element that resists being herded. It's the part that will rebel, that just says "fuck it." As soon as a rule is made, someone will break it in short order. We do the "wrong" thing. We have the capacity to destroy. We destroy works, systems, the environment, each other, ourselves. But destruction is part of creation. And that same X factor is tied to innovation, independence, invention, inspiration, vision, and revolution. Delete it at your peril. My warning to you.
I speak as someone who has had a really hard time conforming to external expectations and norms at times. I've struggled with school, authority, rules, routines, bureacracy, schedules, et cetera ad nauseam. I'm sure if I go see a doctor and ask to be evaluated for "attention deficit disorder," they'll certainly find it. I could say I'm anxious at times, or depressed, or whatever. Alcohol, when I used to drink it, made me insane. Sugar does something similar. My list of traits that could be diagnosed as mental "disorders" is long, and the list of medications I could be taking considerably longer.
But in spite of my X factors, and also because of them, I've made my way, found my path, achieved some success by some measures. When I'm true to myself, and when I say "fuck it" to a lot of the external expectations and standards, the depression and anxiety eases, my natural interests and inclinations emerge, and I find I do have contributions to make.
If I had a "warrior" child, I wouldn't be in a great hurry to see him "treated," medicated, or genetically modified. Before I went to those lengths, I'd want to try some other, more classical remedies-- for example, attention, dialog, consciousness, respect, self-awareness, role modeling, spiritual awareness, and love. Worth a try. The dangers of the warrior gene seem obvious enough, but I think it still has potential benefit and purpose now, as it did in our tribal past... if its carriers are informed, inspired, understood, and cared for properly. When we continue to drop the ball in those areas, yes, there will be a need for interventions, medications, social workers, police, hospitals, mental institutions, and jails.
I'm not necessarily saying that it's the "warrior gene" that also codes for independent thought, innovation, etc. Just that there might be a connection between this potentially hazardous gene and some other desirable traits that we might miss if we weed it out. It's part of the fabric of that makes humanity what it is. Think carefully before trying to cut it out.
