But a different mix than between Swedes and Nigerians.

That certainly does not explain the enourmous difference in political development

Okay how can you determine who is genetically a communist and who is environmentally a communist? We see a massive cultural difference in libertarian blacks and communist blacks that we can directly trace to how they grew up

Something as cognitively complicated as political persuasion being dictated by genes is laughable

Cat, I doubt you even know how to estimate the genetic part of the difference.

Do you, @devpav ?

The idea that political values are directly coded into the genes is laughable. But I'm not the one saying it.

You're implying that

No, you are.

Where am I saying that genes can affect political thought

You're projecting that onto me when I never said anything of the sort.

There are way too many variables involved in political thought to pin it down to any genetic influence

We can see cultural trends like night and day

Environment is a much better predictor of political persuasion

Now Environment would explain the Swedish situation

@devpav I’m beginning to think that you don’t understand how culture works in addition to how genetics work.

@Rickard The statistical estimate involves measuring the amount of variance due to genetic and environmental factors.

Cat, I'm beginning to think you never have anything real to offer to any conversation.

Well sweden is historicly very homogenous when it comes to genetics.
However a very strong "workers movement" has caused extreme social policies to have developed.

@devpav I guess I’m having difficulty integrating with your low IQ. Lol

Poor circumstances for the average people during and just before the industrialization paired with creation of workers groups formed a united political front of people who wished to steal from the rich. Both workers and the rich were all swedish whites.

I've already said multiple times that I'm not saying that every minute historical turn is due entirely to genetics.

But would'nt that practicly defeat genetics as a primary determining factor?

It is the primary determining factor whenever it is measurably the primary determining factor.

Okay that's literally nonsense

It's literally conditional.

I see, so when and how is it the "measurably primary factor"?

But that statement is useless. It doesn't tell anyone about what you believe the frequency of genetics being the primary determining factor

It does nothing to add to the conversation

It's impossible to disagree with that statement too

That's like saying "The Jews are behind all the conspiracies that the Jews are behind". Yeah I guess by definition they are, but what's your point

@DrWittMDPhD his point is that racial genetic differences make racial integration impossible/undesirable. He does not understand both genetics and culture.

Because it depends on the circumstances. Differences between identical twins are purely environmental whereas differences between a pair from two genetically distant human populations are not so much.

You're hand waving. If you're going to be so vague about when genes do and don't affect political persuasion, you can't just attribute 95% of blacks voting for Beta Beto in Texas to their genes.

You speak with a definitive tone when you blame peoples genes for being communists, but you confuse the issue when we try to pin you down on how much you think genes play a role

Nobody attributes particular votes to genes. That's stupid.

You are, in essence, doing just that.

No, I'm not.

Keep in mind that the Democrats are a coalition. They're not monolithic. Just because someone votes Dem doesn't mean they are socialist like Bernie or Ortiz.

When you blame black vote for dems on them being genetically different to whites you are pointing at them, with conviction, and blaming their genetic distribution.

You can attribute persistent traits which might influence voting behavior to genes, but not the vote itself.