And all the Native Americans who have enjoyed alcohol and did NOT become alcoholics, demonstrate that stereotypes are wrong. Sort of like - white men are more likely to beat their wives than Asian men. So if your parents are both white, that makes you more likely to become a wife beater. That's just not true. But if you want to promote bigotry by spreading that nonsense, have at it.

Meanwhile - quality of life trumps genetic "predispositions." Your genetics can certainly contribute to the possibility of all sorts of things. But your upbringing can determine whether or not you end up with the consequences of those genetics or not.

A person whose genetics predispose them to becoming obese, raised in a household of people who value a healthy exposure to a variety of foods with an emphasis on healthy eating and exercise, will be less likely to become obese - than someone who is NOT predisposed through genetics, but is raised by people who start them into their childhood on corndogs, candy, and watching TV for entertainment.

Makes not difference it you’re rotten apple not much can be done.:duck:

"Which is more important the country someone is born in or the parents they’re born to?"

The question turns on how you define "important."


It's funny, when I read this post, I immediately concluded it was a question about national citizenship.

We all play the hand we are dealt.
When you die, the only thing you bring with you is who you are.
The most important thing you leave behind is who you were.

I guess you have not spent much time in, say, Gallup, NM or Winslow, AZ where you will see Navajo men passed out in streets anytime, day and night. Alcohol is a huge problem in the area. Lots of drunk drivers, too. It would seem some groups are predisposed to alcoholism while others are not.

"A survey of death certificates from 2006 to 2010 showed that deaths among Native Americans due to alcohol are about four times as common as in the general U.S. population. They are often due to traffic collisions and liver disease, with homicide, suicide, and falls also contributing.[6] Deaths related to alcohol among Native Americans are more common in men and among Northern Plains Indians.[7][8][9] Alaska Natives showed the lowest incidence of alcohol-related death.[10][11] Alcohol misuse amongst Native Americans has been shown to be associated with development of disease, including hearing and vision problems, kidney and bladder problems, head injuries, pneumonia, tuberculosis, dental problems, liver problems, and pancreatitis.[12] In some tribes, the rate of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is as high as 1.5 to 2.5 per 1,000 live births, more than seven times the national average,[13] while among Alaska Natives, the rate of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is 5.6 per 1,000 live births.[14]"

From: Alcohol and Native Americans - Wikipedia

Again - that doesn't mean that all Native Americans fit the hypothesis. There are millions of people with Native American DNA in their blood who drink responsibly and have no addiction at all. A glass of wine with dinner, maybe a shot of bourbon when they go out dancing in the Squares. You can see it right here in The Villages.

In addition, what I observe here the most, with regards to addiction, are white 20-somethings strung out or picking their skin behind Aldi's or in the plaza that has Takis and Firehouse Subs. They're clearly caucasian. And most of the drunks who get arrested at City Fire are a) white, and b) repeat offenders.

Does that mean white people are more predisposed to alcoholism? Nope. But you can create any statistic to satisfy your hypothesis if you really want to. Here's mine, which makes no sense but I made it up:

MOST posters on Talk of the Villages are White. MOST identify with the gender and sex they were assigned at birth. MOST are conservative. MOST identify as some denomination of Christianity, or a non-denominational Christianity. MOST drunk people in the Villages are white.

Therefore, my statistic: White heterosexual cis-gender Christian conservatives who post on Talk of the Villages have an 89.6% genetic predisposition to alcoholism.

I'm sure that's not true. But that's just exactly how easy it is to use a statistic to push or justify a prejudice.

Well, I suppose if one checks for rates of alcoholism, drug addiction and such in an area that is mostly Caucasian, such as TV, or Sweden, most of the alkies and druggies will turn out to be White. The statistics on American Indians I quoted hereinabove compare their rates of alcoholism to that of Americans in general.

I'm thinking it's likely that Native American alcoholism remains high because a great many of them live in their communities/cultures where consuming it in excess is common.

This is the point that is relevant, imo. From OBB, above.
To bolster it (and also sorta support your point), I had a long, interesting conversation with a nationally-renowned psychiatrist at a party many years ago. I asked him about genetic/family behavior predisposition versus upbringing and he replied (paraphrasing), "That the genetic/familial patterns are there and part of a person but, if they are raised in an environment quite different from those (like in adoption situations), those predispositions/patterns can become quite modified because they aren't being reinforced." Makes sense to me.

An example would be a Native American baby that is adopted shortly after birth and grows-up, say, in a white family in Lexington, KY who only drinks alcohol on holidays. So, the kid doesn't grow-up with much exposure to alcohol - I'm thinking that makes he/she less likely to become a booze addict than if the child grew-up surrounded by those who are and where 'the drink' is a big part of everyday life. Same with violence, verbal abusiveness, etc.

Nature vs. Nurture has been debated a long time.

Personally if I wanted a guard dog I would choose a Doberman over a Lab. If I wanted a friendly large dog family pet I would go for the Lab. That being said my daughter has had two easy going Dobermans but they needed her OK before they got friendly with a stranger. Instinct and all that I suppose.

Nature versus nurture - Wikipedia.

There doesn't need to be a debate, in my opinion, because the obvious answer is both.

But, the point that I, OBB and the shrink were making is that nature (genetics) is not automatic destiny. Many things can occur that can alter or stop certain DNA/familial inclinations.

I just recalled I had read of an interesting study years ago.

The research team found that identical twins who are reared apart had the same chance of being similar as twins who were raised together. Bouchard and his colleagues concluded that genetic factors have a large influence on behavioral habits demonstrating the influence of the genetics on development.

“Sources of Human Psychological Differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart” (1990), by Thomas J. Bouchard Jr, David T. Lykken, Matthew McGue, Nancy L. Segal and Auke Tellegen | Embryo Project Encyclopedia.