"Oh dear yabby,
Ginx was saying that she thinks discussion without 'some' colour >>>(argy bargy insults lack of politeness civility)<<<< was boring." (Quote: Exterminater).

You cheeky little bugger!

Where in the hell did you get that from? Don't attempt to make YOUR posts more colourful by putting words into my mouth!

argy bargy/insults/lack of politeness/civility...EXCUSE ME?

Where did I say that?

Are you on day release?

"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."

Yabby - I would submit that the "law of the jungle" is not, as your post seems to imply "every creature for themselves".

Studies of primates show undisputed group ties and bonds while studies of other animals show a pack mentality which also works for the good of the pack. Whales all gather around a birthing mother, Chimps all look after the young, etc. etc.

"In times of crisis" especially, genetics seem to dictate that animals indeed overcome even their pack or group mentality to ensure survival of all, hence predators not attacking prey at waterholes during times of drought, predator and prey found together on safe ground during floods etc.

I would therefore suggest that your example of the New Orleans behaviours and therefore defence of uncivil behaviour has nothing to do with genetics, or primal behaviours at all.

In fact, would go so far as to venture that this misbehaviour is the learned behaviour. It is, therefore, un-natural and adjustable. yeah?

*while studies of other animals show a pack mentality which also works for the good of the pack.*

Yup, but for humans in cities, you have to define their pack.
Desmond Morris suggests that its the 200 or so people that exist
in ones address book. Humans are tribal by nature and will defend
their extended family first and foremost.

There is an interesting question on this. If there were the last
two of a species left and you had to choose to eat them or let
your family starve, which would you do?

Stealing from those outside of ones tribe, is common behaviour
in nature. So is rape.

*hence predators not attacking prey at waterholes during times of drought,*

There would be no need for predators to attack prey in times of
drought, for there would be enough carcasses lying around, for
there to be a feast every night.

We see this interesting thing in our community right now. Everyone
wants to save the environment, as long as it does not cost them
their job. People put the interest of themselves and their families
first. In other words, people will agree to all sorts of things
that you can call conditioning, but when the crap hits the fan,
they take care of themselves and their loved ones first and foremost.

Ginx,
Many apologies is my words offended you.

As I was saying but you seemed to have missed the point perhaps I wasn't clear you were posting in favour of 'colour' in debate and commented that if we were all polite it would be boring.
Given the context it appeared that you were not opposed to a bit of what *I* termed as you pointed out.

In essence I was saying that life is exciting enough and the real value in a conversation it the exchange and the new/different information. I also linked it to a context of the world needing the ever increasing sensationalism to notice some of the infinitely more interesting things (the consequence of our environment.)....life i.e. if a movie doesn't have a sex scene two crashes and the odd graphic violence it's defined as a kid or chic flick or boring regardless of the story/issues raised.
I also said that I accept that other people may want the this extra stimulation but in my view this is the result of our culture. Not genes.
OK I may have misunderstood your parameters Sorry

PS. I don't deliberately start a conflict if I do it's by accident or oversight because I'm trying to put too much in so it makes sense. When reading my fallible utterances please consider context and any nuance that is probably intended.

By all mean challenge me but the comments like "day release" were neither by error nor add to your complaint. In future I'll be more circumspect regarding you.

Yabby
We are indeed taking about two different issues.
I was attempting to stay on topic to explain my point in context of the original question.
You have a habit of steering conversations into topics you want to talk about regardless of the topic. Rules be damned.

Not withstanding that your understanding of potential and mine seen to differ some what while it is a nuanced point it is never the less germane to the issue.

'Potential' doesn't equate with will happen it mean a might happen susceptibility. And that depend on many variables. As I have already said you are taking extremes and extrapolating it across the the population as an absolute. Some are, some aren't and the reasons for these variations aren't yet understood. There are a number of theories many conflicting but not yet scientifically proven. The twins example is indicative of something but nothing yet satisfies the 'predictability and repeatability” requirements of scientific fact.
Your conclusions are in the realm of theoretical philosophy not physical science.

Neither am I saying I can change genetic probability as in gay to straight or black to white but there are documented cases whereby conditioning have changed (confused the orientation process).

All this proves is that there are many factors that influence (form) a personality and specifically attitudes. To go down the you rout is determinism therefore a murderer is a product of his genes so He isn't responsible for his actions they are beyond his control.
Or to take it to the extreme it justifies Eugenics.....Bollocks.
I suggest you read a bit more on evolution and its logic.
End I'll not respond any more to this line. Perhaps you should start your own topic.

*Rules be damned.*

Examinator, the Viet Cong did not know the rules and look what
happened to them :)

Fact is that Fractelle's original question was answered a long time
ago and yes, sometimes threads drift on to related topics, its up
to the posters really.

*'Potential' doesn't equate with will happen it mean a might happen susceptibility. And that depend on many variables.*

Potential Examinator, means exactly that. Without potential, it
can't happen. If the genes don't code to give you eyes to see or
legs to walk, you have the potential to do neither.

Sometimes Examinator, it seems to me that you are so busy trying
to be pretentious, that you cannot even grasp these straightforward
issues.

* The twins example is indicative of something but nothing yet satisfies the 'predictability and repeatability” requirements of scientific fact.*

Ah, but information can be part of science, without yet being
accepted as a "fact". Twin studies are very much part of science
today.

If anyone has it wrong right now, it is you, for putting firm figures
on what is genetic and what is environmental. That is nothing more
then your speculation, that is certainly not scientific fact