Sage Eugenics

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
dyctiostelium
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:35 am

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by dyctiostelium »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:
offering yourself via genius forum to the scientists so you can be studied at the genetic level?
I wanted to explore the relationship between genetic inheritance and potential for enlightenment, using myself and others as examples because I do consider myself conscious to a certain degree.
The problem is that it seems you don´t fulfill the sage phenotype...

But, OK, let´s humor you and take this idea forward: you would need to submit to the scientists samples of DNA from several hundred certified sages of the same ethnicity and sex AND several samples of DNA of several hundred certified non-sages, again of the same ethnicity and sex. (To actually see a genetic effect one would need to be reasonably sure that both the sages and the non-sages grew up in comparable environments, but hey, is not that anyone is taking the proposition seriously...).

It will be interesting to build such a list of DNA donors, with input from GF members.
Sages and non-sages, doesn´t matter if they are currently alive or dead (DNA forensic techniques are a beauty!).
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Cory,
Do you have any examples of such a woman? But again, like I said, the desire to preserve excessive sexual excitement makes no sense.
You’re not thinking of the context. If she has a masculine brain due to genetic engineering, she won’t value sexual gratification to the same degree as when she was a pornstar because she’ll be capable of a deeper intellectual life.
I don't see your point. What could possibly be wrong with valuing sexual gratification to a 'decreased' degree? I mean, Sue Hindmarsh is a perfect example of a woman who can think, reproduce yet not value being sexual. You're really not making any sense when it comes to this issue.
This is because men need a clear sense of good and evil, where women are less inclined to care
She does care about certain issues though, she has a more intuitive drive for morality, as it applies to her role as a family member.
Are you talking about her 'Motherly' role of nurturing her sons? That doesn't make her more masculine. That's just a normal woman.
She is mostly concerned with issues that apply directly to her like the right nutrition, the right medicine, and so on. These are all moral issues that women can be very concerned with for family reasons.
Women are generally concerned with taking care of their kids health. For instance, some mother's refuse to allow their children to be exposed to second hand cigarette smoke and white sugar. Do you think such mothers are of a more masculine type?
Many women have the intuitive understanding that to prevent suffering for everyone is a good thing.
Yes, women do a good job of making things very soft and fuzzy. It's good for toddlers and young pre-teens - but not very good for teens and men.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

dyctiostelium wrote:
But, OK, let´s humor you and take this idea forward: you would need to submit to the scientists samples of DNA from several hundred certified sages of the same ethnicity and sex AND several samples of DNA of several hundred certified non-sages, again of the same ethnicity and sex. (To actually see a genetic effect one would need to be reasonably sure that both the sages and the non-sages grew up in comparable environments, but hey, is not that anyone is taking the proposition seriously...).

It will be interesting to build such a list of DNA donors, with input from GF members.
Sages and non-sages, doesn´t matter if they are currently alive or dead (DNA forensic techniques are a beauty!).
I think the results would show some very significant genetic contrasts between high-intelligence sages, and low-intelligence mediocre people, especially in regards to genes responsible for brain size, neurological complexity, gland/hormonal stability, and so on. There are a handful of factors that are key in engineering a super species.
dyctiostelium
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:35 am

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by dyctiostelium »

So, who would be on your list?
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Ryan wrote: Bringing up the left-handedness claim is just a theory, there have been studies that have shown that left-handed people are more artistic, contemplative, introverted and all the rest. It has something to do with the hemisphere’s switching functions. There are a myriad of factors that explain the phenomenon of each person, an infinite number of causes. Why not propose them?
Just look at who you're proposing it to: myself who is right handed, fairly introverted, contemplative and artistic. Second, if there were records that the great geniuses of our past were sometimes left handed, then your proposal would be reasonable, rather than nonesensical.
dyctiostelium
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:35 am

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by dyctiostelium »

Ryan Rudolph wrote: I think the results would show some very significant genetic contrasts between high-intelligence sages, and low-intelligence mediocre people, especially in regards to genes responsible for brain size, neurological complexity, gland/hormonal stability, and so on. There are a handful of factors that are key in engineering a super species.
Oh, no, but if you´re going to select only high-intelligence sages and only low-intelligence mediocre people the results are most likely going to show genetic contrasts that underlie levels of intelligence. That would not be what you´re looking for, at all. Intelligence is not sagedom, right? Of course not.
So, I am afraid that you´ll need to have both low and high intelligent sages and both low and high intelligence certified non-sages.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by Cory Duchesne »

dyctiostelium wrote:
Ryan Rudolph wrote: I think the results would show some very significant genetic contrasts between high-intelligence sages, and low-intelligence mediocre people, especially in regards to genes responsible for brain size, neurological complexity, gland/hormonal stability, and so on. There are a handful of factors that are key in engineering a super species.
Oh, no, but if you´re going to select only high-intelligence sages and only low-intelligence mediocre people the results are most likely going to show genetic contrasts that underlie levels of intelligence. That would not be what you´re looking for, at all. Intelligence is not sagedom, right? Of course not.
So, I am afraid that you´ll need to have both low and high intelligent sages and both low and high intelligence certified non-sages.
Don't forget dyctiostelium, we also need to measure varying 'emotional intelligence'.

I'm sure interpreting the genetic architecture for that one will be no problem.
dyctiostelium
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:35 am

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by dyctiostelium »

Yeah, plus we´ll need to make provisions for measuring the genetics of "masculine-looking-face-ness" in females and "feminine-looking-when-young-face-itude" in males.
Is going to be so much fun...
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

dyctiostelium wrote:I am afraid that you´ll need to have both low and high intelligent sages and both low and high intelligence certified non-sages.
*...trying to picture a stupid sage...*
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
dyctiostelium wrote:I am afraid that you´ll need to have both low and high intelligent sages and both low and high intelligence certified non-sages.
*...trying to picture a stupid sage...*
Well, a high IQ doesn't necessarily equate to wisdom - although if the IQ is too low, I doubt the attainment of wisdom would be possible. However, if we're going to engineer a superspecies, we might as well maximize IQ. Obviously easier said than done though. One problem I think is when both the IQ and the hormones are very high together: such a condition may be even less desirable than low IQ with high hormone levels, because the former would be much more destructive than the later. I think Henry Mencken was on the right track when he said:

"War will never cease until babies begin to come into the world with larger cerebrums and smaller adrenal glands."

I also think the attention they've given to the endocrinology of criminals is a good place to start.

Louis Berman, in 1922, wrote what I believe is still a significant book about the potential of understanding endocrinology and engineering a superspecies. Here it is:

The Glands Regulating Personality
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

dyctiostelium wrote:
Oh, no, but if you´re going to select only high-intelligence sages and only low-intelligence mediocre people the results are most likely going to show genetic contrasts that underlie levels of intelligence. That would not be what you´re looking for, at all. Intelligence is not sagedom, right? Of course not.
So, I am afraid that you´ll need to have both low and high intelligent sages and both low and high intelligence certified non-sages.

It will probably only be possible to give humans the genetic foundation to guarantee a much higher level of intelligence than the present average, but not necessarily sage hood. Genetic engineering will probably only drastically increase the probability of someone being enlightened.

Cory wrote:
Are you talking about her 'Motherly' role of nurturing her sons?
No, her desire to do what is best for the people she lives with. For instance: my parents smoke outside, and they are making constant attempts to quit, and she has started cooking and baking with much more intelligent alternatives than her old patterns. Her desire to do what is superior in these cases illustrates a degree of masculinity. I make the argument, and she has the intelligence to realize that her old ways are inferior. Women have a lot of potential in this regard.

Cory wrote:
women do a good job of making things very soft and fuzzy.
I don't personally see a problem with the women’s intuitive intelligence in creating a comfortable, aesthetic environment in the house. She has a certain contextual and homemaking genius that she doesn’t even realize.

Cory wrote:
I mean, Sue Hindmarsh is a perfect example of a woman who can think, reproduce yet not value being sexual.
But there is a larger context that I'm thinking of. Sue is genetic anomaly that should be studied. There is not another woman in the world with her genetic configuration. I’m talking about manipulating the current genetic template for your typical woman, which will require a myriad of tedious changes.

And the various discoveries will probably be made by comparing someone like Sue’s genome to a conservative woman, and then to a polygamous woman, until many of the relevant relationships have been mapped. This seems like a possible method that could be used.

Cory wrote:
Just look at who you're proposing it to: myself who is right handed, fairly introverted, contemplative and artistic. Second, if there were records that the great geniuses of our past were sometimes left handed, then your proposal would be reasonable, rather than nonesensical.
There are mixed theories out there, but here is some information that supports the idea. It’s not a new idea.

"Exposure to higher rates of testosterone before birth can lead to a left-handed child.[11] This is the Geschwind theory, named after the neurologist who proposed it, Norman Geschwind. It suggests that variations in levels of testosterone during pregnancy shape the development of the fetal brain. Testosterone suppresses the growth of the left hemisphere and so more neurons migrate to the right hemisphere. The highly developed right hemisphere is now better suited to function as the center of language and handedness. The fetus is more likely to become left-handed, since the right hemisphere controls the left half of the body."

"In his book Right-Hand, Left-Hand,[24] Chris McManus of University College London, argues that the proportion of left-handers is rising and left-handed people as a group have historically produced an above-average quota of high achievers. He says that left-handers' brains are structured differently in a way that widens their range of abilities, and the genes that determine left-handedness also govern development of the language centers of the brain."
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:she has started cooking and baking with much more intelligent alternatives than her old patterns. Her desire to do what is superior in these cases illustrates a degree of masculinity. I make the argument, and she has the intelligence to realize that her old ways are inferior. Women have a lot of potential in this regard.
Her son expresses a preference for how his food is prepared, there are no objections, so she complies with her son's stated preference. As a result, the son thinks his mother is masculine because she is intelligent enough to listen to a man like him. Women have lots of potential to listen to men. Good grief, there is so much wrong with this that I'm not sure where to begin, and knowing how long you have been on this forum - and this is the conclusion you come to - I'm not even sure it's worth the effort.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Elizabeth wrote:
Her son expresses a preference for how his food is prepared, there are no objections, so she complies with her son's stated preference. As a result, the son thinks his mother is masculine because she is intelligent enough to listen to a man like him. Women have lots of potential to listen to men. Good grief, there is so much wrong with this that I'm not sure where to begin, and knowing how long you have been on this forum - and this is the conclusion you come to - I'm not even sure it's worth the effort.
Women should listen to men if the man’s instructions correct ignorant behavior. If she was able to make a better argument as to why she should keep baking with the same toxic chemicals then I would have listened to her, but she realized that I was correct, and changed.

And yes, ideally, I know that she should not be doing all the cooking in the household, but she is better adapted for the task, I do a lot of heavy lifting, and yard work that she is unable to do. The chores are distributed according to who is better suited for the task.

However, given my circumstance, It is difficult to divide up all the burdens of the home fairly, especially when many members are unthinking and robot like, and they prefer to do these tasks all day long. Sometimes it is easier to accept ‘what is’ and allow people to behave in the way they prefer.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Most of the chefs who are considered "world's greatest chefs" are men, so my fuss was not about who does the cooking. And it is true that males are stronger than females, so it is more efficient for a male to do the lifting.

By the GF moderators' Woman philosophy, the thinking about what is the best way to cook is a masculine action, and going along with it is a feminine action. They do not say that it is wrong to go along with a good idea, only that it is a feminine action - not a masculine one.

Using normal English, figuring out the best way to cook and arguing for an improved method is an active action. Going along with a good idea is a passive action. Although females are more likely to be passive than young males are, IMO that is not enough to assign gender to the action.

Men do get more passive as they get older, but that does not make them more feminine. Women do get more insistent on getting their way as they get older, and are more likely to think more deeply, and in general not be so shallow as they age - but that does not make them more masculine. In both cases, it just makes them more mature - which should happen as a person gets older.

Although in general women are more passive than men, there is a different word for passive and for feminine because they have two different meanings.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Are you talking about her 'Motherly' role of nurturing her sons?
No, her desire to do what is best for the people she lives with.
In other words, to do what's best for her, since her identity lies in her family.
For instance: my parents smoke outside, and they are making constant attempts to quit, and she has started cooking and baking with much more intelligent alternatives than her old patterns. Her desire to do what is superior in these cases illustrates a degree of masculinity. I make the argument, and she has the intelligence to realize that her old ways are inferior. Women have a lot of potential in this regard.
Well, women have always had the potential to submit to the insistence of men, especially if the man is a loved one. But I agree that the effort to overcome and strive for a sense of greater superiority is relatively a sign of masculinity. So if you're mom is working toward ideals, then that's unquestionably more positive than stagnating in old patterns.
I mean, Sue Hindmarsh is a perfect example of a woman who can think, reproduce yet not value being sexual.
But there is a larger context that I'm thinking of.
I'm not sure why you would want to settle for any less.
Sue is genetic anomaly that should be studied. There is not another woman in the world with her genetic configuration. I’m talking about manipulating the current genetic template for your typical woman, which will require a myriad of tedious changes.

And the various discoveries will probably be made by comparing someone like Sue’s genome to a conservative woman, and then to a polygamous woman, until many of the relevant relationships have been mapped. This seems like a possible method that could be used.
It's good to hear that the intention behind a study such as the one you propose above is much different than the one you were proposing earlier.
Just look at who you're proposing it to: myself who is right handed, fairly introverted, contemplative and artistic. Second, if there were records that the great geniuses of our past were sometimes left handed, then your proposal would be reasonable, rather than nonesensical.
There are mixed theories out there, but here is some information that supports the idea. It’s not a new idea.

"Exposure to higher rates of testosterone before birth can lead to a left-handed child.[11] This is the Geschwind theory, named after the neurologist who proposed it, Norman Geschwind. It suggests that variations in levels of testosterone during pregnancy shape the development of the fetal brain. Testosterone suppresses the growth of the left hemisphere and so more neurons migrate to the right hemisphere. The highly developed right hemisphere is now better suited to function as the center of language and handedness. The fetus is more likely to become left-handed, since the right hemisphere controls the left half of the body."

"In his book Right-Hand, Left-Hand,[24] Chris McManus of University College London, argues that the proportion of left-handers is rising and left-handed people as a group have historically produced an above-average quota of high achievers. He says that left-handers' brains are structured differently in a way that widens their range of abilities, and the genes that determine left-handedness also govern development of the language centers of the brain."
I went on wikipedia and read up on left handedness, and I'll concede I was a bit impressed about what I read and my mind has been opened to the possibility. Although I'm sure the wikipedia info was put up by left handers. So a little bias might be at play. But based on what I've been reading, there may be something significant about this left handedness business.

Naturally of course, driven by a somewhat envious skepticism and subtle desperation I found some studies that 'claim' to disprove it:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2006/12/lef ... ent_s.html

What I find really bizzare about the above article is how it starts off:

"Contrary to popular scientific belief, left-handedness is not linked to dyslexia, poorer spatial ability, homosexuality, asthma and hyperactivity, a University of Guelph psychology professor has found."

And then similarly, there was the intro to this article:

"Over the years science has claimed that the left-handed are prone to all manner of ills. Alcoholism, autism, bed-wetting and brain damage, immune disorders, even a shorter live span are just some of the problems linked to left-handedness.

Not that I believe in it, I'm now actually leaning toward the possibility that lefts are gifted, but it's strange to me how left handedness got associated with all these types of deficiencies.

I also discovered this book:

The natural superiority of the left hander

Being a right hander who is obviously entrenched in samsara to some degree, I can only sneer in contempt at what I've been faced with.
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Sat Sep 29, 2007 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Cory,
Not that I believe in it, I'm now actually leaning toward the possibility that lefts are gifted, but it's strange to me how left handedness got associated with all these types of deficiencies.
If the first theory is correct about higher levels of testosterone at birth, and a more developed right hemisphere, and a less developed left hemisphere, this could result in an autistic outcome, and many of these other deficiencies as well.

Ironically, perhaps the fact that left-handed brains are deficient in a developmental context gives them a significant higher possibility in developing above average strengths.

Moreover, left handed people are usually able to learn other languages much easier because their right hemispheres have significantly higher amounts of neurons, as this hemisphere is responsible for language acquisition. However, their weakness with spatial relationships is due to their poorly developed left hemispheres, which has much less numbers of neurons, which is all due to the over amount of testosterone at birth.

Historically, it is understandable that many cultures treated left handed people like inferiors, and even killed them because of their inability to socialize and adapt properly.
"Contrary to popular scientific belief, left-handedness is not linked to dyslexia, poorer spatial ability, homosexuality, asthma and hyperactivity, a University of Guelph psychology professor has found."

"Over the years science has claimed that the left-handed are prone to all manner of ills. Alcoholism, autism, bed-wetting and brain damage, immune disorders, even a shorter live span are just some of the problems linked to left-handedness.
Very interesting because….

As a child, I had asthma and was constantly sick. I suspect that my immune system is more sensitive to the environment; my mother was always afraid that I was going to die prematurely.

In grade one, I almost failed because dyslexia prevented me from reading properly, my teachers discovered that I simply memorized words that I heard because I couldn’t recognize symbols as distinct things, and their relationship to sound. To this day, I still have a difficulty pronouncing some words I haven’t heard spoken before.

Also, I don’t trust my driving skills because I don’t trust my ability to observe close-up spatial relationships in risky situations, I have almost ran over pedestrians many times. I have to memorize the locations of all the crosswalks in the city, and have absolutely no distractions while driving just to be able to spot pedestrians. It requires a lot of concentration for me.

If I am looking for something in the fridge, I can spend minutes scanning for the desired object, and sometimes I stare directly at it, but I don't see it. And someone usually walks by and points out the object for me.

I don’t have any homosexual tendencies, but I do have an overactive heterosexual sex drive, probably due to unusually high levels of testosterone.

I was hyperactive as a young child, but as I grew, I slowly became more obsessively attentive, anal retentive, and a bit of a compulsive perfectionist. This resulted in high grades later on in school.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by Cory Duchesne »

That being considered, it seems to me as if the left handed population of males is arguably a microcosm of masculinization.

Compare the population of males at large to females at large.

Females are more in the middle, hardly ever deviating into the extremes of very gifted to very impaired.

Males on the other hand are much more varied, deviating more often into extremes of genius as well as impairment.

Males seem to be created under more precarious conditions than females.

Left handed males, evidently, even more so.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Cory wrote:
That being considered, it seems to me as if the left handed population of males is arguably a microcosm of masculinization.
Yes, and it is an imbalanced neurological state, so it is very precarious as you say. It is almost as if the huge dosage of testosterone shrinks one hemisphere, causing the other one to compensate by drastically enlarging.

The testosterone's initial negative affect on the brain ends up having a more positive outcome.

That being said, I suspect there is probably a relatively higher rate of left-handed suicide and self-destructive behavior as well because the right environmental conditions are so paramount to the development of these individuals.

However, there should be a way to engineer individuals so that the masculinization is more balanced throughout both hemispheres in the brain. Perhaps geneticists could manipulate the genes responsible for brain size to make the brain as large as possible, and then as the fetus is developing, both hemispheres could be engineered in such a way that both hemispheres to develop the most complicated network of neurons possible, with the largest number of neurons possible.

Here is another major difference I found - From this article -
One factor that may allow for greater variation among left-handers in how their brain is organized is that, compared to right-handers, they have a larger corpus callosum - the bundle of tissues that connects the right and left halves of the brain. According to a report last month in Science, the corpus callosum of left-handers is, on average, about 10 percent larger than that of right-handers, a difference estimated to represent as many as 25 million nerve fibers.

''The left-handers' large corpus calossum seems to allow for greter communication between the halves of the brain, and a more diffuse spread of the brain centers that control such mental functions as speaking, comprehending spoken language, and the perception of faces and of melodies,'' according to Sandra Witelson, a psychologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, who did the research.
I'm thinking this better connected corpus callosum could have a sort of feminizing affect, increasing the person's overall emotional intelligence because both hemisphere's are better able to communicate with each other, and they end up sharing functions more, and not being so segregated and specialized. However, this femininized affect in males ends up making them predisposed to be more masculine.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Ryan wrote:I'm thinking this better connected corpus callosum could have a sort of feminizing affect
I'm pretty sure a woman's brain has a thicker corpus callosum. It's much thinner in men.
However, this femininized affect in males ends up making them predisposed to be more masculine.
If you're going to play this angle Ryan, I think it's more sensible to say that greater femininity leads to greater masculinity. Much like, a greater root system in a tree results in greater branches. From this view, the feminine is just as important as the masculine. The masculine just ends up being more obvious, the feminine more hidden.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Sage Eugenics

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Cory wrote:
If you're going to play this angle Ryan, I think it's more sensible to say that greater femininity leads to greater masculinity. Much like, a greater root system in a tree results in greater branches. From this view, the feminine is just as important as the masculine. The masculine just ends up being more obvious, the feminine more hidden.
Yes, that is a more effective way of putting it, I agree.

I’ve been thinking how women are naturally good with language from a young age due to many of these factors, and a spiritual man is also quite good with language.

I bet a woman’s neurological architecture has many of these parallel features, so perhaps her brain structure has many of the ideal design features of an enlightened sage, but her biggest fault is that her brain is rooted in the feminine personality type, and not the masculine personality type.
Locked