[psiji]

1veedo said:

Yes, I understand your point about complete isolation. The question isn't about being in complete isolation though because the child would, quite literally (and obviously), die. Probably because of starvation/dehydration. The question is about social isolation. These studies were studies about being socially isolated and what that does to you. This is exactly what I was talking about above; people we're thinking (and rightly so) "total isolation from right after birth.... I'd like to see a newborn baby survive alone in any environment." (Radical Edward)

This is what you're doing too.Well I assumed you knew what I meant. I made it very clear above that the key word was social isolation.I believe this is the only correct thing you thing you've said in this entire thread.

If you want to talk about complete isolation, that's fine. I'm assuming complete isolation from birth leads to death. If not... that's possible, but I doubt it.

However, it is a straw man to equivocate complete isolation with social isolation. It may be true that the OP really meant complete and total isolation, but I'm assuming he's referring to the sort of isolation that most psychologists and sociologists talk about. If not, then my bad; I'm not always that great at reading between the lines, but I'm pretty sure this is what QuickSilver1024 was talking about. I've never read anything about "complete" isolation before in my life; the only sort of isolation I've ever read about are cases such as Anna.

Do you know what a straw man is? A straw man occurs when the opponent in an argument chooses to attack a position the arguer never took (or an exaggeration or silly version of the argument) most likely due (in my experience) to an inability to comprehend or objectively analyze the oppositions viewpoint.

My exact point of reference in my first point (which I still don't understand why you would attack considering it was the case referred to in the posting topic of this thread) was on complete isolation. I even put it in italics to prevent such a confusion from occuring. Hence, you posted a straw man in your first post in regards to my original argument.

Why did I come to this conclusion? How about from this obvious statement in this first post, "When I say human isolation, I mean a complete isolation from humans, rite after birth till death"

Reading between the lines in this case involves a thought experiment that requires complete abstraction since there are no cases of humans being raised in complete isolation due to the logical absurdity of such a claim. Thus I used a logical account of what I've learned in the past four years of research and study where I've learned and applied these concepts to the development of language, memory, semantic priming, and information retrieval/encoding, to pose a question of "what-ifs" to an interesting question (albeit a logical aburdity).

When you say, "I believe this is the only correct thing you thing you've said in this entire thread." I realize you really don't know shit, to put it bluntly. I'm here to learn and you have nothing for me, so get the last word in if it will somehow make you feel you have one-up on me. Oh, and if you really do have asperger's (and aren't using it as something novel you can identify with that fits well in your image as yourself as a unique intellectual - I don't know how asperger's became the trendy personality disorder of the year. I'm absolutely fascinated how it was barely unkown last year, and nowadays I run into an overabundance of pseudo intellectuals claiming they have asperger's, but that's another rant...) I suggest you practice your critical thinking skills, or all the facts, knowledge, and skills you acquire will be absolutely useless when you can't convey, understand, or take into consideration another person's (in this case, correct) viewpoint. Peace.

[1veedo]

psiji said:

My exact point of reference in my first point (which I still don't understand why you would attack considering it was the case referred to in the posting topic of this thread) was on complete isolation. I even put it in italics to prevent such a confusion from occuring. Hence, you posted a straw man in your first post in regards to my original argument.

This is what I told you above. If you're talking about complete and total isolation, then we're not talking about the same thing. It is you who posted after me saying that I was wrong. The post where you "put in italics" that you were talking about complete isolation was a response to my post. A post where I had very clearly distinguished exactly what I was talking about (and even italicized the important part).

"C'mon you guys do know he's assuming the child is fed and everything. Social isolation is the key word here."

What we're looking at here are people stuffed in garages, isolated from the outside world, from spring and fall, isolated from human contact, from care and love, from TV and the media, isolated from school, and ultimately isolated from society itself. They get a bowl of milk shoved under the door every day to keep them alive. They go 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year without a single kiss from a loving parent. These are the cases of child abuse that we're talking about here. This is what you ignored in order to form a straw man against what I had said, for whatever reason... I assume just because you like to argue.

Quote

Why did I come to this conclusion? How about from this obvious statement in this first post, "When I say human isolation, I mean a complete isolation from humans, rite after birth till death

I'm talking about the OP. The paramount issue is that everyone was assuming the OP was referring to total isolation -- where the child would (probably) die from lack of food and water. I am merely suggesting that maybe, maybe, he was talking about social isolation (he does use the qualifier human isolation after all). This in and of itself is a completely different issue from the validity of my posts.

If you want to argue about the effects of social isolation, you have to do so without bringing up the implications of total and absolute isolation. They are not the same thing and arguing against one does not constitute arguing against the other. I have position X. You presented positing Y, which is not the same thing as X, and attacked it. Therefore, according to your logic, X is false. This is not how logic actually works.

Quote

Im doing an essay on human isolation, and I need some help in writing it. All I need is your comments and ideas.

When I say human isolation, I mean a complete isolation from humans, rite after birth till death. What will it do to this human? His instincts, his mind, his movements, will it be any different than our own? Will this human act like our ancesters? The effects on this human when its a baby (nobody to learn off of) Will he know how to express his feelings? (facial expressions) If he even knows how. And effects during teenage and adulthood. Will puberty hit sooner or later compared to us? How would he be different? Physically and mentally. And what will happen if this human come face to face with another human. How will he react?

Please reply with your comments and ideas

Theres whole bunch of other questions that should be pretty obvious, please include them in your reply

Thanx

So if I read wrong, then my bad. If you want to discuss the merits of being able to survive without food and water, that's something completely different. It is you who is trying to equivocate what I'm talking about with complete isolation. I'm talking about social isolation. There's a difference. I think it's an obvious difference.

I gave you quotes from a college sociology book concerning isolation. This is standard curriculum and you're trying to disagree with it. If you were to take a course on sociology, you would learn that isolation leads to permanent mental damage. You would learn about Anna. And you would learn about Harry and Margaret Harlow. Six months of isolation for a monkey is enough to cause permanent psychological damage. This is a fact, and ironically this is actually a case of complete and absolute isolation, not just being isolated from [monkey] society.

I just thought that this information was relevant to the discussion so I posted what I knew about it. I guess what I'm saying is that I was trying to be helpful by sharing what I know.

If you took a course on sociology, you would most certainly fail this aspect of the course. Anyone who takes sociology is expected to know this; it is exam material that you would be tested on. Saying I don't know what I'm talking about assumes that I am failing the class. In reality, I have an A. Not just on the course, but I also received a 100% A on the midterm exam. So either you had a bad professor, you failed the class, or you have never taken this course before. I recommend you sign up, it's an interesting class and you'd probably like it.

[1veedo]

And btw w/ asperger's, I was diagnosed when I was in the six'd grade, at school. My teachers then put me in gifted special education. At the time I didn't really know what was going on.

It's funny though that we talk about a bunch of people being diagnosed with asperger's when people started noticing it, because this is what happens with a lot of mental disorders. Multiple personality disorder (dissociative now) and bipolar are examples of this (some people think both are still overly diagnosed). But the funny thing is that it's related to the autism "epidemic." (which in my opinion is caused mostly by genetics, but this is all off topic. It's not because they're simply diagnosing more people w/ it though. This is a fact that directly contradicts what you're saying.)

What's even funnier though is that many people with asperger's syndrome go undiagnosed. A lot of people live their entire life without knowing they have it, or until they're adults and they come in because of depression(don't start about depression...). So while you're saying people are getting diagnosed too often, it's actually diagnosed a lot less often then it should be.

[Diana]

Radical Edward summed it up....it would starve. This experiment could not be done in nature.