Much food for thought, as usual, for us here Ant. I like the way you turn things on their head by speculating that modern genomics could lead us down the path of Nazi eugenics.
Hitler’s genetic predispositions, toward autism, schizophrenia and psychopathy, alongside his dreadful childhood abuse, might perhaps lead to explaining the monster he became. But I knew many with similar dispositions who saw out their lives on psychiatric backwards or in homeless shelters. Wherein lies the difference? Many, many different factors , no doubt. Fascinatingly, Hitler was blinded in the Great War. A military doctor, guessing it was psychosomatic “shell shock”, cured him. Hitler took this as a miracle denoting his destiny to achieve great things!
One final thought on this. A previous eminent Oxford historian , Hugh Trevor Roper,was fooled by Hitler’s hoax diaries. Are we sure that isn’t repeating itself?
Interesting comments, and also by Derek Healy. There is a big difference between direct causes, whereby certain conditions WILL be inherited, and a disposition towards something. There will also be people with similar DNA as Hitler who turned out to be completely normal – although ‘similar’ and ‘normal’ are perhaps subjective. There are chance elements, and we can choose what we do. I do not want to blame any bad behaviour by myself on my DNA. Finally, if experts are looking for something (including behavioural ‘defects’), they are pre-disposed to find it. I wonder whether the experiment was rigorous, with many other samples being tested, without any knowledge of the people involved. I recall a Horizon programme from 2008 called How Mad Are You? A politically incorrect title, that would probably not be allowed today. Experts (a Psychologist, a Psychiatrist and another, whom I forget) observed 10 individuals, of whom 5 were normal and 5 had a diagnosed mental illness. In one test, a fairly old Scottish woman had to judge when she was confident that balls taken from a jar had a red or blue majority. She guessed that there was a red majority, after the first ball. On this basis, the experts decided that she had psychosis (or some other condition). She was actually normal, but had acted irrationally.
Much food for thought, as usual, for us here Ant. I like the way you turn things on their head by speculating that modern genomics could lead us down the path of Nazi eugenics.
Hitler’s genetic predispositions, toward autism, schizophrenia and psychopathy, alongside his dreadful childhood abuse, might perhaps lead to explaining the monster he became. But I knew many with similar dispositions who saw out their lives on psychiatric backwards or in homeless shelters. Wherein lies the difference? Many, many different factors , no doubt. Fascinatingly, Hitler was blinded in the Great War. A military doctor, guessing it was psychosomatic “shell shock”, cured him. Hitler took this as a miracle denoting his destiny to achieve great things!
One final thought on this. A previous eminent Oxford historian , Hugh Trevor Roper,was fooled by Hitler’s hoax diaries. Are we sure that isn’t repeating itself?
Interesting comments, and also by Derek Healy. There is a big difference between direct causes, whereby certain conditions WILL be inherited, and a disposition towards something. There will also be people with similar DNA as Hitler who turned out to be completely normal – although ‘similar’ and ‘normal’ are perhaps subjective. There are chance elements, and we can choose what we do. I do not want to blame any bad behaviour by myself on my DNA. Finally, if experts are looking for something (including behavioural ‘defects’), they are pre-disposed to find it. I wonder whether the experiment was rigorous, with many other samples being tested, without any knowledge of the people involved. I recall a Horizon programme from 2008 called How Mad Are You? A politically incorrect title, that would probably not be allowed today. Experts (a Psychologist, a Psychiatrist and another, whom I forget) observed 10 individuals, of whom 5 were normal and 5 had a diagnosed mental illness. In one test, a fairly old Scottish woman had to judge when she was confident that balls taken from a jar had a red or blue majority. She guessed that there was a red majority, after the first ball. On this basis, the experts decided that she had psychosis (or some other condition). She was actually normal, but had acted irrationally.
Altogether, I am sceptical, sorry.