Link to the related website that has useful info: the Age of Nelson.

This forum is devoted to the Royal Navy during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1793 - 1815).
And why not the other navies of the period?
To avoid spam, you must register to be able to post - it's free.

FAQ         Register         Profile         Search         Log in to check your private messages         Log in
Was Nelson's ruthlessness genetic?
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.ageofnelson.org Forum Index -> Age of Nelson
 
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
PMarione
Site Admin


Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 883

Post Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 10:56 pm    Post subject: Was Nelson's ruthlessness genetic? Reply with quote

Nelson and many other officers like Troubridge were ruthless sometimes.

This study claims to have found a link between ruthlessness and a gene called AVPR1a.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080404/full/news.2008.738.html

So maybe Nelson had a rather short AVPR1a but certainly longer than the people quoted in the article and than Troubridge.

This is probably the origin of the expression "to have a short fuse". Smile

I find this kind of study very disturbing: pure eugenics.
Very strange for a Hebrew research center to practice this kind of study (or not?).

@+P
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
alexlitandem



Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 129

Post Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ruthless. Sometimes.

Define.

C'mon Patrick. Of course the man was - jeez - wired.

Give us a competitive set?

Give us baseline data?

ALL is genetic!

DARWIN!

With tweaks.

Nurture Embarassed


Ruthless.

Sometimes?

Ruthless - undefined.

On Wednesdays?

Half past eleven on Mondays?

C'mon?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PMarione
Site Admin


Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 883

Post Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

During the Neapolitan Revolution?

But he had had a blow on the head.

@+P Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
alexlitandem



Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 129

Post Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patrick,

Mon brave,

The whole Naples `episode', certainly, has led to the most accusations of, at best , `ruthlessness' and, at worst, base and dishonourable behaviour by HN.

And, you quite rightly select to cite that example as - even if just for the sake of debate - being indicative of Nelson's capacity for ruthlessness.

(I don't want to side-track anyone by engaging immediately on any discussion of Nelson's motives and judgement or behaviour at Naples; but for anyone who may not yet have read it I would commend Marianne Czisnik's "Nelson: A controversial hero" for a well-argued analysis and pretty extensive set of source references for further reading.)

But if, for one moment, one steps beyond ( a big step I agree ) that specific episode, what else does Nelson offer us to suggest his `ruthlessness'?

His treatment of Fanny?

His `bluff' of the Danes?

I was `serious' in reflecting on what definition of ruthlessness we should be applying before, thereafter, addressing whether Nelson satisfies the agreed criterion / criteria.

Was Stalin ruthless? Or congenitally psychopathic?

Is ruthlessness to be equated with amorality? Sociopathic attitudes and behaviours?

I'm merely musing - and trying to step back from the mythology for a moment - and asking myself `Was Nelson exceptionally...' ( say) strong-minded, strong-willed, unchangeable in behaviour once a decision was made ( irrespective of changes in actual real world circumstances post the decision moment)... was he a pedant, sticking rigidly to the letter rather than, say, to the spirit of the law? Is he in that / those senses to be considered `ruthless'?

Still musing: perhaps `ruthlessness' is a multi-facetted trait, directly linkable, let's say, to a specific common genome signature - as your initial post and its references may suggest. But if so, are gradations in ruthlessness - whilst genomically (is there such a word) initiated, thereafter culturally emphasised or subdued in some way?

What leads to the `ruthlessness' of a Pol Pot, a Stalin, a Genghis Khan... or to a Napoleon or Nelson... and are they the same trait? Does motivation matter?

Can one be beneficially ruthless? Can one be applauded for being ruthless in pursuit of some supposed good but condemned for ruthlessness if one's a) motives b) goals are considered to be `bad' ( by history's judges)?

I wonder how - if at all - the formulation of Law in the distant future will be modified as we learn more about the genetic `basis' for behavioural traits? Will the `he / she couldn't help it... was in the genes' argument ever creep into our conception and practice of justice?

Anyway... thanks for drawing our attention to the article

Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PMarione
Site Admin


Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 883

Post Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Alex for reminding us of the little book of Marianne Czisnik.

It is one of the most interesting in the 2005 flood of hagiographies.

A must-read: Marianne Czisnik, Horatio, a controversial hero, 2005, ISBN: 978-0-340-90021-5.

@+P
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
PMarione
Site Admin


Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 883

Post Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I posted this article because I find
1) the article perfectly stupid
2) the study perfectly inept

It remembers me of an April prank in Nature some years ago: the author showed a perfect correlation (1.0) between drop of the birth rate in Germany and the number of stork's nests. A clear proof that the cabbages are disqualified.

Quote:
ruthless: having or showing no pity or compassion for others.


I would certainly not put ruthlessness as the main characteristic of dictators.
I don't believe that Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Saddam, Bush or Cheney were even ruthless.
They were/are patriots and cared for their people.
Another characteristic they all share is charism and leadership.

The problem is that they were megalomaniacs, sociopaths, psychopaths...

Nelson definetly didn't qualify.

What I find very disturbing is that Israel can subsidize this kind of pseudo-science.
We are in line with lombrosianism, sociobiology, etc.

@+P
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
alexlitandem



Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 129

Post Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well Patrick, is it merely a case of bad science? Or damned awful journalism / reporting? Or both?

In any event, it cost me $8 US to register and get access to what I thought would be an abstract - at least - of the study itself!



Instead, I merely got access to the near imbecilic prose of Michael Hopkin.

He starts badly enough.

QUOTE:

Selfish dictators may owe their behaviour partly to their genes, according to a study that claims to have found a genetic link to ruthlessness. The study might help to explain the money-grabbing tendencies of those with a Machiavellian streak — from national dictators down to 'little Hitlers' found in workplaces the world over.

END QUOTE.

(Define, in any order you wish, without please circularity `Selfish dictators', `ruthlessness',` money-grabbing tendencies of those with a Machiavellian streak', `Machiavellian streak' etc.,)

I love the non-news fence-sitting ( the `probably', `may have' [ or `who knows' ...] style so reminiscent of the unmentionable one ?).

Selfish dictators ( give me one or two specific examples of this class please, authors / Mr. Hopkin?), in contrast - one imagines - to those 'unselfish, let's spread the wealth, love, resources and kudos around equally', dictators ( examples please?) "may owe their behaviour partly to their genes".

May, mark you. Or, may not, as the case may or may not be. You get my drift I'm sure.

Of course, if one - even for one second - allows that a range of, I suggest with confidence, rather complex relationships between genetic inheritance, cultural exposure and evidenced attitudes and behaviours exists in the case of any individual, it hardly seems a Nobel prize-winning leap of imagination to speculate that "Selfish dictators may owe their behaviour partly to their genes."

Partly! Gosh! What a novel idea chaps!

And, of course, as Hopkins' article plunges, para by para, into ever deeper depths of non-science reporting, one does cringe.

Surely, despite manifest experimental design flaw possibilites here, surely, the research itself couldn't have been as asinine as Hopkin's article encourages one to believe?

He closes, for those who can read between their tears of mirth, as follows:

QUOTE:

ruthless dictators may be motivated not by out-and-out greed but by a simple lack of social skills, which leaves them unable to sense what's expected of them.

That certainly fits with the image of a naïve yet arrogant dictator with no sense of the inappropriateness of his actions and attitudes. Such figures have cropped up with surprising regularity throughout history, all the way from the emperors of Rome, through to Napoleon Bonaparte, Benito Mussolini, Saddam Hussein or Robert Mugabe, now tenaciously clinging to power in the face of uncertain electoral results.

END QUOTE.

Ruthless dictators, not really selfish after all?

Just shy?

Unable to decode the feedback they get appropriately? ( So they just continue to, say, build more Stalags, invade Poland, machete their tribal opponents to death with zeal... empty the towns, send the population back to the fields and bang babies heads against trees...).

Hmm. Or, as I prefer, Hmmn.

And one really does have to poke oneself in the eyes to distract from the pain of unbearable laughter as one reads:

"Such figures have cropped up with surprising regularity throughout history, all the way from the emperors of Rome, through to Napoleon Bonaparte, Benito Mussolini, Saddam Hussein or Robert Mugabe."

To name but four. Out of, how many billions of us have there been?

Yes, Michael, four or five, a couple of dozen even... does strike me as being surprisingly `regular' indeed.

How many would have struck you, Michael, as a) statistically predictable, and / or b)`surprisingly infrequent''?

None? One? Two?


$8.

Crying or Very sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.ageofnelson.org Forum Index -> Age of Nelson All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ   Search    Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Nun