Technically correct, in that biology created a brain capable of learning non-genetic information.
But, personally, I think if a behaviour is learned rather than e.g. a genetically programmed reflex, it's useful to draw a line between them and say that the former isn't biological in origin.
Having worked in behavioral analytics at scale the most surprising aspect is how much of it is purely genetic. There is a lot of emergent complexity that looks unique but really isn’t, simply variations on a theme. But an individual is unlikely to meet enough people to see the trends in the long tail. Clustering at scale along with the birthday paradox will give you a bunch of people with the same rare behavior and usually you can drill down and find there is quite a lot of genetic similarities as well.
I can absolutely believe that. In general I wouldn't want to guess which behaviours are in each category, but from e.g. the things dogs and cats do that seem fundamentally weird to humans and vice versa, I expect many genetic behaviours to exist.
Going upthread a bit, I would expect tagging to be genetic, as it seems similar to other territorial markings created by other species. But I don't expect e.g. the specific shapes of Futhark runes to be, as the straight edges look like merely the easiest shapes to carve into rock and other writing systems aren't limited to those shapes even when (e.g. Egyptian hieroglyphics) they are carved.
Oh yeah, specific shapes of runes are not genetic, those are taught, I didn’t think we were drawing the line that far over. Modern society has chosen to underplay the role of genetics for seemingly quasi religious reasons, it’s as if we’ve gone back to using the soul to explain things. Basically every time I spotted unusual behavior in search logs I found out that people searching were way more related then they’re supposed to be. Socially taboo behaviors were used as a baseline as there are things that people will not tell each other but will tell a search engine.
> I didn’t think we were drawing the line that far over
Don't worry, I'm agreeing with you — I chose to use the example of shapes of runes as something unambiguously on the "learned" side, not as something close to the dividing line :)
> Socially taboo behaviors were used as a baseline as there are things that people will not tell each other but will tell a search engine.
That's piqued my curiosity. While on the basis of past experience I may regret asking… do you have a link to any results of this research?
The kind of stuff I wouldn’t even put in an email. I did confer with colleagues from a variety of companies doing similar work and they saw similar things, it’s the kind of thing that pops up quite frequently even when not looking for it. Essentially many of the base assumptions society has agreed upon are wrong. In order to maintain that belief the messengers are crucified, so smart people who know keep it to themselves.
It has a more personal link for me as I have one of the more distinct and rare genetic personalities and come from a long line of unusually smart assholes. It turns out clEDS causes a great deal of pain and when you complain about it people will tell you it’s normal, and how are we to know it’s not. Overtime it’ll change your brain chemistry and sabotage your life to the point you do become an asshole. There is also a strong link to intelligence, there is a fringe theory of RCCX genes explaining giftedness and I was one of those profoundly gifted children (clEDS is a recessive TNXB mutation, though I believe the official classification is wrong and the particular sub type of TNXB mutation matters). At school I was warned that people that gifted usually hit a wall pretty early on due to burnout, but really it’s chronic fatigue that starts to get really bad in the mid 20s. So it seems to be a Faustian bargain and I guess if given the choice I would chose it again, it certainly makes life more interesting. I hope that overtime I can figure out a solution to the pain, I’ve done much better than most and hope I’ll be able to avoid turning into an asshole, though some may say too late…
> But, personally, I think if a behaviour is learned rather than e.g. a genetically programmed reflex, it's useful to draw a line between them and say that the former isn't biological in origin.
That will lead you into all kinds of obvious mistakes. The things you're capable of learning are set by your biology too.
The line I draw has never resulted in me being unaware of that.
(Rather the opposite: I have a long-standing fascination with the idea of genuinely unthinkable thoughts, thoughts which cannot be had no matter what).
So, while I would for example say that my capacity for complex language is biological in origin, I think it is more useful to describe my knowledge of Esperanto as not biological in origin.
Frequently, but even just priming is sufficient to cause that observation. The existence of magnetic hysteresis doesn't make it pointless to draw a line between natural and artificial magnets.
But, personally, I think if a behaviour is learned rather than e.g. a genetically programmed reflex, it's useful to draw a line between them and say that the former isn't biological in origin.