Yabby,
Pity you are so behind in your understanding of genetic science..perhaps that's not one of you 'talents'or in your genes.
I think you'll find that genes are set scaled perpensities(= or -)there are other factors that can influence too. As pointed out before science says that nature V nurture, nature (genetic) on potential mental atributes can be modified by circumstances, nutrition, influences, conditioning. etc.
Like I said we are more than the mechanical 'urges of the lower brain.
Your breed of determinism is currently not proveable or even seriously considered. Too many variables.

*Ah, but there is of course more to the brain then just urges.
We are the product of our parts. The mind is what the brain does.
There are no ghosts up there lol.
Genes determine potential, environment determines how that potential
develops or is used.*

That is what I wrote, Examinator. That is essentially correct and
up with the latest neuroscience.

You stick to your field of sociology, I'll back neuroscience
any day.

We know what happened when those "gays for Jesus" decided that they
would turn hetero. The two leaders ran off with one another :)
So much for conditioning.

Nutrition etc are all part of environment, so are fully allowed
for in my statement.

OK.

Bronwyn: Thanks. You actually put up a post as I was writing my two parter. It was appreciated more than I can express. It is also so damn kind after that, to clarify your subsequent post in an endeavour not to offend.
I thank-you.

Houelles: 'second on your list' eh? Well I'm just going to pick up the pieces and learn to live again.
As for the rest of your post. I was expecting it. Opportunity for potshot knocked loudly on your door didn't it?

Examinator:......"Ginx I don't share your jaded view of life I don't need to be stimulated by what amounts to titillation in everything from argy bargy in conversations, magazines , nude pictures et al (etc.,)....." WHAT!.!.!.!.!

Tell me, TELL ME that you have structured your sentence badly. 'Jaded'? Agreed. But the rest...?!?

OK. So be it. We continue.

Yabby
You missed my point or the topic comprehensively.
It is clearly demonstrable that there are many factors that come to bear in potential.
But as I said genes and all the other issues previously mentioned have a non linear varying effect on things like attitudes.

Sex genes primarily determine your orientation as was clearly the case of the gays you mentioned .

But there are far more common cases where the “gene potential is modified” in which case other aspects can and do dominate. Your reasoning is neither objective nor scientific.

In context the topic was largely about attitudes towards women which are clearly culturally not genetic based. If you are rude arrogant or macho then they are primarily learned attributes. I agree that genes can statistically influence thought process but your position and that of your fellow protagonists seem to indicate that genetics are the far dominant feature ergo Men must have sex often and are a dirty boots one end and dirty mind the other ...Which is not to put a fine point on it is BS.

As per usual your argument is couched in extremes which are statistically more than three standard deviations from the mean i.e. about 3-5% of the population.
I would suggest your presentation of the facts seem to indicate that you don't understand the inherent variability and the nature of science. If you do might I suggest that you rephrase your arguments.

Oh dear yabby,
Ginx was saying that she thinks discussion without 'some' colour (argy bargy insults lack of politeness civility) was boring. In other words she needs some thing extra to maintain interest.
In the context of the topic (remember that?) I was pointing to the (I thought clearly) explained link between the two.
Was my spelling wrong?
I also said that I don't need the 'extra' (stimulation[titillation alternative usage])to enjoy a discussion.
Likewise I don't need external stimulation to get aroused nature does that successfully.
Variety in the bedroom is only enjoyable if both want it and the actual act is not the primary motive anyway.
Nor do I feel the need for that extra level of explicit stimulation to enjoy a story movie etc. Neither do I necessarily need to challenge my mortality by sky diving, mountain climbing or sailing an ocean endless expense surrounded by fibreglass/carbon fibre etc. to appreciate my life.
You can trust me on this when laying in hospital bed on “death's door” or being pulverised by a bunch of hoons such preceding joys of life are merely extravagances and the last thing on your mind. Just being alive and being able to grow as a person to appreciate more is more than enough.

Ginx sorry if it was a bit much life was enjoyable way back before the mass percieved need for over stimulation on anything.
Mind you I don't judge or begrudge others. I just believe civility is fundemental to communication.

Examinator, you are a great one for shooting down your own strawman
arguments. Perhaps you should best address the points I am making
and not wander off on your own little tangent.

If genetic potential is not there in the first place, none of the
rest is possible. Take the case of people born with defective genes.
No matter what they do, they are how they are, limited by that fact.

Every thought that you have, has genetic influence, even if you are
not aware of it. For every thought is clouded by emotions, brain
chemistry etc. You are only ever aware of a tiny bit of what is
actually going on in that brain of yours.

We know from twin studies where twins were seperated at birth,
just how huge genetic influence really is.

This notion that you can just change people with conditioning, is
full of holes. How come does conditioning not work for Catholic
priests who should be thinking of Jesus and not sex? Years of
conditioning, day and night and still they fail. Just one example.

I remind you that the veneer of society is rather thin, as we saw
in say New Orleans and lots of other places. It does not take much
of a crisis for people to throw away all that learned behaviour and
the law of the jungle is back. Ignore that at your peril, for the
history, rise and fall of civilisations is full of it.