[Coral Rhedd]

Think I am going to go take something strong. Like a Celebrex and a cup of tea.

[ramin]

Sayonara³ said:

This thread is a farce.

Sayanara

[ramin]

Quote

Two things: -

• You are over simplifying the case. Genes do influence some aspects of psychology, and enviroment influences by a much more acute degree. You cannot ignore one in favour of the other.
  
• Where did you get your degree?

Ofcourse I can favour one for the other! Why wouldn't I be able to?

Let me give you a reason. Say a child is born with a certain phenotype. An environmental variable is not present: the attempt to understand the child's mind. As a result, the child develops a disorder. Now, why was there no attempt? Due to social influence on the parents. If someone said, hey, let's alter this child's genes instead of making a more intelligent society, I would say let's make a more intelligent society! And clearly I have good reason to do so.

[ramin]

Quote

Ramin let me enlighten you;you are stating that disorders such as Autism are due to Environmental defiency .BULLSHIT
Autism knows no racial, ethnic, or social boundaries,family income, lifestyle, and education do not affect the chance or occurrence of autism.There are actually 5 categories to the disorder .Which in this conversation i need not name.
Autism is caused by abnormality in the brain,this shows up on scans between autistic,non-autistic.Whilst presently nobody can pin down what triggers it,accumulated scientific evidence points to it being hereditory,genetic and medical(which i presume is your false assumption of environment..more later)
The main theory is that groups of defective genes inhibit the development of normal brain structure.Scientists are currently searching for these irregular segments in the genetic code of autistic persons.I wont go further into details because of the "fright syndrome" you speak of.
The 'environment difficiency'which you speak of is not valid.Because the only factors in environment that could contribute or lead to the disorder.Are either during pregnancy ingesting toxic substances(no real supporting evidence for this) which interfere with fetal development,viral infection.Or viral infection shortly after birth,phenylketonuria,TS,CRS etc.
Unless your clasifying viral infection as an environment defficiency,your completely seeking to mislead everyone with groundless claims.
Read please There is no evidence whatsoever for Autism being caused by neglect,lack of affection,lack of education in infancy,social interaction,cold,hunger,climate or continent of birth.
Please let me know if you disagree,i look forwrd to reading your rebuttal.

Just because you say its not environmental it certainly doesn't make it not environmental. Genes are irrelevant when an environmental deficiency exists. They can find the genes to be the cause for any disorder in a deficient environment. For example, person X has a certain phenotype at birth. Have you ever heard of experiential expectant biology? Generally, certain environmental things have to exist for certain biological structures to develop. So, indeed, my genes led me to a disorder, but person X's has not, because we were exposed to the same environment. But both environments could be deficient, not providing the stimulation needed for only one of us to develop incorrectly. So who cares about genes in this case? Do you?

[ramin]

Quote

Two things: -

• You are over simplifying the case. Genes do influence some aspects of psychology, and enviroment influences by a much more acute degree. You cannot ignore one in favour of the other.
  
• Where did you get your degree?

My degree's from UBC. I'm not saying people here agree with me either. But you'll see in the future, at least. Psychology paradigms and education are quite guilty for current reductionist and determinist ways of thought.

[ramin]

It's interesting how many of you allege autism is a biological disorder while the very mystery of autism lies in the critical period of development. That just gives the green light to a destructive style society.

[Sayonara³]

ramin said:

Sayanara

If you were intending to say "goodbye", then (a) you really ought to have spelled it correctly, and (b) you might want to think about it a little.

[AzurePhoenix]

okay, if genes have nothing to do with psych, then theoretically, a dog raised under human conditions should be human in psychiatric terms, though certainly limited in its intelligence by anatomical brain capacity. Hmmm, as far as I know, that's not true. Are each of us born with a sort of blueprint of instincts that define us as humans, and dogs as dogs.

In humans and other higher intellects (dolphins, ravens, chimps, parrots, pigs, dogs, and even cats) clear personalitites are evident, but in most cases are purely based on the inborn personality of the species in question, no matter how it was raised (there are some exceptions in which the pet takes on the traits of the species that raised it, but indeed, there are some dogs that act more human even when raised in a pro-canine atmosphere)

it seems that this would imply there was a key genetic element to at least the base of the critter psyche. Simply because humans are more advanced, that just means there are more details to further personalize on, right? If that's so, should it be so hard to believe that many or most or even all of the details that define a particular person are in some part persuaded if not fully dictated by an instinctual (thus genetic) blueprint?

Just a thought :confused:

[Phi for All]

ramin said:

My degree's from UBC. I'm not saying people here agree with me either. But you'll see in the future, at least. Psychology paradigms and education are quite guilty for current reductionist and determinist ways of thought.

I think this thread needs to be moved to the "Only Post IF You Agree With Me" Forum, which I'm advising Administration we create immediately.

[Coral Rhedd]

New York Times online has this article on autism:

http://www.nytimes.c...lth/08brai.html

It does little to suggest evironmental causes for autism. It seems to me that there is a tacit acknowledgement of genetic causes.

[john5746]

I agree, genes are meaningless. I'm sure I get burned at the Beach easier than dark-skinned people because my Mother didn't eat enough when she was pregnant. :D

[ramin]

Sayonara³ said:

If you were intending to say "goodbye", then (a) you really ought to have spelled it correctly

oooh spelling :eek:

Quote

and (b) you might want to think about it a little.

why would I think twice about saying bye to someone who calls an important debate a "farce"?

[ramin]

Quote

okay, if genes have nothing to do with psych, then theoretically, a dog raised under human conditions should be human in psychiatric terms, though certainly limited in its intelligence by anatomical brain capacity. Hmmm, as far as I know, that's not true. Are each of us born with a sort of blueprint of instincts that define us as humans, and dogs as dogs.

In humans and other higher intellects (dolphins, ravens, chimps, parrots, pigs, dogs, and even cats) clear personalitites are evident, but in most cases are purely based on the inborn personality of the species in question, no matter how it was raised (there are some exceptions in which the pet takes on the traits of the species that raised it, but indeed, there are some dogs that act more human even when raised in a pro-canine atmosphere)

it seems that this would imply there was a key genetic element to at least the base of the critter psyche. Simply because humans are more advanced, that just means there are more details to further personalize on, right? If that's so, should it be so hard to believe that many or most or even all of the details that define a particular person are in some part persuaded if not fully dictated by an instinctual (thus genetic) blueprint?

Just a thought :confused:

You did not argue that genetics play a major role in the majority of disorders. You have to argue with the premise that genetics play a big role in deficient, as opposed to sufficient, environments. That's my argument. Your thoughts are great, but don't apply to the idea that genetics are not important regarding a majority of human disorders, or even personality. Do they? If so, how?

[ramin]

tuskir said:

Genes load the gun, environment pulls the trigger

Environment allows genes to load the gun in the first place.

[ramin]

Phi for All said:

I think this thread needs to be moved to the "Only Post IF You Agree With Me" Forum, which I'm advising Administration we create immediately.

I guess you don't know much about arguments... and can't handle someone who might be right.

[ramin]

Quote

New York Times online has this article on autism:

http://www.nytimes.c...lth/08brai.html

It does little to suggest evironmental causes for autism. It seems to me that there is a tacit acknowledgement of genetic causes.

Why did you avoid the argument? I said genetics can be blamed for anything in a deficient environment. Here, I'll make it bold. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO RESPOND HAS TO RESPOND TO THIS CLAIM:

Genetics can be blamed for anything in a deficient environment

[ramin]

john5746 said:

I agree, genes are meaningless. I'm sure I get burned at the Beach easier than dark-skinned people because my Mother didn't eat enough when she was pregnant. :D

Psychology John, psychology...

[ramin]

Will someone provide an argument relevant to the topic, or for many, just an argument instead of defensiveness?

[Mokele]

Quote

Will someone provide an argument relevant to the topic

Funny, we've been waiting for you to do just that.

Mokele