Cory: Think about the aboriginal boy raised in an isolated tribe 2000 years ago. And now think about that same boy raised in a modern reserve with lots of opportunities to sniff gas, drink alcohol and gamble. Big difference in personality.
Yes, but it’s not like the past natives are superior to present natives in terms of genetics.
And that is exactly my point – the genes are the same, but the character, due to environment, turns out different.
Ryan wrote: Many natives still smoked tabbaco, had group sex experiences, danced around fires singing, and did all sorts of other things to excite and stimulate themselves.
Yes, the natives were not wise and enlightened. Lets not deviate too far from the main point of the discussion - the point being, environment shapes character to a significant degree.
Cory: I define strong personality as the sort that can tolerate questioning reality and values to such an extent that he actually emerges from the inquiry with his own opinion, his very own idea, rather than merely being tethered to other peoples ideas, opinions, and definitions.
Ryan: You are thinking more in terms of the first definition of personality and I am using the second definition.
1. somebody's set of characteristics: the totality of somebody's attitudes, interests, behavioral patterns, emotional responses, social roles, and other individual traits that endure over long periods of time
2. characteristics making somebody appealing: the distinctive or very noticeable characteristics that make somebody socially appealing
a partner with real personality
I understood the context you were using the word in - - I was just trying to show that just because an individual is lacking the sparkling personality that a woman or womanly man might be delighted with, doesn’t mean he is any more conscious or potentially more wise. And just because an individual is capable of being very charming to woman and womanly men - doesnt mean he is any less capable of devoting himself to wisdom.
And also, the two different definitions of personality above - are really the same. There are just two different ways of describing the same thing.
The way you are using the word personality, I think I more or less equate with cowardice, femininity.
Cory: But he wouldn’t have become an alcoholic if he was raised in an Amish community - would he?
Ryan: A guy like Steve probably wouldn’t have lasted in an Amish community.
He probably would have ran away. He could never see the importance in things like religion, philosophy and discipline.
Did anyone make an attempt to instill those values into him?
Well of course he could never see the importance in what is more difficult. Since his environment took it easy, he took it easy.
Ryan wrote:
Group morality wouldn’t have worked on him, unless the sexuality of a women kept him there, but that would have been his only incentive.
Wanting to please ones role models and family figures is also very powerful. And in regards to the power of woman, in order to get a woman he may have had no problem learning the ropes and working hard for his wife. He wouldn’t have known any outside world. You make it sound like he would have grew up in an Amish community automatically identifying with partying hard, having fun, alcohol, drugs and rock and roll - - -but the truth is that those personality shaping concepts would not have touched his mind. He would have looked up to those who took care of him and rewarded and punished him with whatever pleasures and concepts were being dealt. Sure, because of his genetic disposition he may have been more succeptible to prioritizing his life around enjoyment, but probably not to a degree that was too destructive.
Ryan wrote: People create the societies they want.
Not really. A very, very small minority of humans create and organize a society - - whereas the rest are conditioned with reward and punishment, fear, pride and shame, to obey the rules. The environment largely determines how individuals live, as does genes.
Ryan wrote:
Steve is like his father, and his father was like his father. It isn’t a matter of role models, it is a matter genetics. In terms of the enzyme that is responsible for breaking down alcohol, it doesn’t function like many other people, the result is the person that is immediately addicted to alcohol after only a few encounters. All natives have this weakness.
You can repeat this over and over to me, but the fact remains the same. If you remove alcohol totally from the environment, the individuals development is significantly different.
Ryan wrote: The role models that people choose are only as good as the strength of their wills, intellects and emotions.
Partly true. It’s also true to say that the role models that people choose are only as good as their environment.
Ryan wrote:
Steve never looked up to his father and he never wanted to emulate him - he thought he was a dick.
Probably because he was a dick. The pain of having a dick for a father might have been dealt with by appeasing his pain with drugs. Conveniently, Steve had peers who helped him feel cool, and feeling cool was his way of escaping pain.
Ryan wrote:
He looked up to the rolling stones, and ACDC, guys that knew have to party hard, play music, have fun, and get women.
A common way of dealing with the pain of having parents who don’t seem to care all that much. And even if he didnt feel that much pain over his Dad being a Dick - - - simply the lack of any discipline or values were responsible for Steves strong propensity for partying hard, identifying with rock and roll and drugs. I probably would have turned out very similarly. I used to wait down at the bus stop and because my mother told me that my neighbor my age, Daren, was a bad kid who had bad parents, I was frightened to be his friend so I stayed away from him. If my mother wasnt so elitist and judgemental I probably would have made friends with Darren and thus followed a similar life style as Darren who was quite a bit like Steve in some respects.
Ryan wrote:
every time I argue this, I am favored to weigh genetics more heavily than the environment although I agree that there is a certain environmental standard one needs for the thinker to have any chance at all.
Ok, so you admit, that there needs to be a certain environment in order for a wise individual to come into being and that the wrong environment can hold people back.
Ryan wrote:
The strength of the will is defined by the strength of the intellect which is related to the emotional strength of the individual
Henry Kissinger had a massive intellect, but was a war criminal, a diplomatic coward. He was weak willed. And generally, high IQ doesn’t necessarily result in a profound individual, but more often than not, a cowardly one.
Ryan wrote:
If someone has an intellectual and emotional handicap, they will also be feeble in terms of will, people don’t choose how intellectual/inquistive/introverted they are, it is something they are born with.
It really depends on ‘how’ handicapped you are talking about.
A man with an average intellect can potentially reach greater levels of consciousness than a man with a great intellect. The factor differentiating them is will power - which is drained by certain factors that are permitted into the environment.