MovieChat Forums > Trading Places (1983) Discussion > Environmentalists are wrong

Environmentalists are wrong

posted 3 years ago by OvertonPendulum (4026)
5 replies | jump to latest

The success of Eddie Murphy is this movie implies the hereditarians are wrong and the environmentalists right. Real scientific evidence shows otherwise. IQ is mostly (around 75%) genetic.

[–] Redsfan001 (6159) 3 years ago

According to Dr. Pinker, author of The Blank Slate.

The current consensus from scientist for the "nature/nurture" debate is...

60/40

If you are interested in the subject, I highly recommend the book. Very readable, not to nerdy, great stories.

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

Yep Pinker did a good job with that book.

[–] avortac4 (3746) 2 years ago

'Real scientific evidence'... fancy weasel words there.

There's more to intelligence than measurable quotients. There are also people, whose IQ is never truly measured.

Also, your 'evidence' may point towards that kind of conclusion, but I would challenge that it's actual proof of anything.

Real intelligence can come from many sources, and superb intelligence can be also hindered and suppressed by very many factors indeed. This is why there can NEVER be a true answer to this kind of question. For example, what dictates genetics?

What I am driving at, is if we take properly scientific realities into the mix, that this planet's clumsy and materialistic 'science' refuses to even acknowledge, things become more interesting and less rigid. Intelligence does not come from genes, because it's not a quality of the body.

This false premise that your 'REAL scientific evidence' (as opposed to what? UNREAL scientific evidence?? Did you have to add that word, wouldn't 'scientific evidence' be enough? It's very revealing that you did that) is based on, of course falsifies the results, and renders your conclusions, no matter how blindly you believe in this cult called 'science', null and useless.

Intelligence is a property of the soul, not the property of the body. Intelligent soul can be born to a genetically limiting body, so their ingelligence can't be accessed fully, and thus it APPEARS they are stupid, even though they themselves ARE actually very intelligent, they just don't have ACCESS to all of their intelligence due to the limitations and blocks that the body imposes during that incarnation.

This fact ALONE renders everything you claimed completely wrong and false.

Also, the first claim is ALSO wrong; the Dukes simply chose the WRONG candidate for their experiment.

Eddie's character is very intelligent, very resourceful, energetic, social, quick thinker, street-smart, and on and on. This is not your everyday, normal 'low-life thug from the ghettos'.

[–] avortac4 (3746) 2 years ago

I mean, Eddie's character is an EXCEPTIONAL individual, and the environment, in this case, WAS the only thing keeping him down. The most intelligent 'scientist' would be just as unable to rise to any kind of social or societal rank if they were put to his body and his position; heck, they might even be doing worse, because they're not as street-smart, or have as charming a personality.

So this movie and what happens, proves absolutely NOTHING about environment or genetics whatsoever.

If they had chosen a dumb-witted drug-addict that isn't cracking jokes all over the place and who doesn't have that Eddie Murphy-laugh to charm everyone's socks off, I would say they would have simply squandered all the fortunes and not cared if someone vomits in their house's floor. We have a real case study in what 'Rahat' tried to do for a homeless guy (Eric, I think), and this backfired drastically, Eric actually managed to bring Rahat down instead of Rahat bringing Eric up; Rahat had to go through therapy and burnout, his reputation was ruined, and so on, and Eric simply squandered every penny instead of using the opportunity to build himself up.

This would ABSOLUTELY have happened with Eddie's character, too, if he hadn't been an EXCEPTIONAL, already intelligent individual with street smarts, amazing intuition and all kinds of dazzling qualities. He was the wrong subject to choose.

Dan's character was actually a bit more slow-witted, as he had lived a complacent life where he didn't have to really challenge anything or struggle with anything, so he wasn't prepared for the tough street life, he absolutely has no street smarts, and would've 'offed' himself, if the circumstances hadn't prevented it.

Turns out you CAN bring someone down by simply changing their circumstances, and they can't bring themselves back up - I doubt ANY genetics would've helped Dan's character in his plight, and if it hadn't been for the stupid cliché of 'hooker with golden heart' (groan)...

[–] avortac4 (3746) 2 years ago

..Dan's character would ABSOLUTELY have ended up as a homeless bum with no future (so to speak).

Dan was brought down and then lifted up, his genetics weren't involved at all, things just happened to and for him, instead of him taking control over his life. Only when he was brought back to a position of power, could he function again, could he have agency again, and then TOGETHER WITH OTHERS, he was able to become rich.

By himself, he'd been doomed.

Eddie's character was already in a 'doomed' position, but he had some fight in him, he wasn't giving up, he was smiling and had a great disposition about everything, he would have had -some- opportunity to climb up for sure.

Had they chosen someone that's truly in the drug-addict world of despair and misery, preferably with bad teeth, the bet would've ended up with 'genetics impact people more than environment'.

Of course, in reality, -= EVERYTHING =- is a factor, and no single thing ever dictates things fully. Bad environment can bring and keep some people down, while others can still climb up from that. Bad genetics might do the same, but if environment changes, they might either get up and stay up, or go back down and stay down.

The same exact circumstances can depress one man and inspire another, as was the case of some brothers, who gave the same answer to the question of 'why are you in the position you are in now' - their strict father. That strictness depressed and immobilized one brother and drove him to alcoholism, it inspired and created an urge to show him in the other brother, so the other became a bum, the other a wealthy man.

So environment doesn't dictate everything, genetics doesn't dictate everything, but instead, there are so many factors that dictate what and where you will be and how you think. Also, think about enlightened Zen masters; they live in poverty in some mud hut, but they're happier than the richest people on the planet. How would you rate that for genetics/environment?