Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    various places at once
  • Interests
  • College Major/Degree
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Situated Cognition
  • Occupation
    Social Services


  • Baryon

ramin's Achievements


Baryon (4/13)



  1. And instincts have nothing to do with the environment right Mokele? Lol... The definition of personality is stable traits. If you're talking inherently unstable traits, then we are in agreement, and there is no such thing as personality. A "trait" that is malleable is a contradiciton in terms. Now, the so-called "trait," which is stable, is 1- stable due to the environment, supporting the notion that personality does not exist. 2- What do you mean traits are produced inherently in the person? Give an example or something... Do you know anything about the assumptions of Behavioral Genetics research, especially the results of their studies? Name me one. You seem to be highly misusing the data. Your idea of malleability is a bit sophisticated though, and I agree with that. But you realize that personality is supposed to be an inherently stable characteristic, right? That's the definition in psychology, and it seems that you are agreeing with me that it should be discarded. Ra-min
  2. Goodness, what a waste! I thought you were going to show me something scientific, not media! And to think that people like you go around acting like they know stuff! Just to elaborate on at least one core mistake in the twin study, which any sensible researcher will recognize, both kids lived in the same ****ing environment! Well that doesn't say much now does it if both environments are deficient! Lol...what a joke!
  3. So now you're supporting an everyday connotation as a scientific definition? That's very weak, and not even an argument. No, those are not psychological traits. They are reactions to a given environment. Traits imply stable things produced by the person. This is very clear. If you're going to run away from the clear point, don't bother trying to argue. Have you heard of the User Illusion? That's called determinism. You will regret being a determinist: it makes little sense and is oppressive. It is very clear that genes do NOT determine the degree you react to your environment, but that the environment does. I'll give you an example. Respond to this example if you want to continue. Child X and Y are two different kids. Let's assume an unfounded assumption that Child X's genes make her a bit more "passive" while Child Y's genes make her a bit less "passive." However, what do we mean by passive? Passive to what? In environment X, where let's say there is an abusive party, Child X becomes passive and depressed, what they call "learned helplessness" if you've heard of it. Child Y gets aggressive. Determinists such as yourself would say that the genes contribute to the difference. I say the environment contributes to it, and is the only important causal factor. Because in Environment Y, where there is no abusive party, Child X and Y essentially react the same way. No, you're playing with the semantics of "importance." What do you mean? Important in terms of existent causes, or important in terms of important? Sure, let's ASSUME genes allowed someone to resist a deficient environment, an assumption that has minor evidence to support it in the first place. But let's assume it, as I agree that it has some minor merit. Genetic composition X allowed person X to resist better. This is only important in the sense that genes existed as a causal factor, not that they are important as a causal factor. Since in environment Y, which is not deficient, person X and Y are equal, the environment is what matters. I'll make sure to read this, but it better not be riddled with assumptions and be fully irrelevant to the argument, like other articles I've read. I'm pretty sure I've responded fully above, but I will for sure give you a chance and read the article as well followed by a comment. Cognitive Science has showed all of what I've said already, and found the holes in psychology ideology. But many others, such as some imminent biologists, anthropologists and environmental scientists, have more or less realized the above as well, though it is less integrated as it could be (such as above). That's what I do, I integrate facts. Two Cognitive Science books: Natural Born Cyborgs by Andy Clarke (don't be distracted by the name) The User Illusion by Noretranders A book I'm not sure I would recommend, but that I'm enjoying so far is in the biological view and seems well intergrated and enlightened: Not by genes alone. You should be able to tell that I'm not some closed-minded fool, though you might discriminate me as such by the "looks of it." Let me guess, you live in the US? I've had experiences like this from Americans a lot, unfortunately.
  4. What? Now we changed the definition? Well, its all odd and detached definition anyway. The problem is mainly that "traits and qualities that pertain to character or behavior" is a stupid sentence. What do we mean by character? This might be an illusory concept in the way its used. Do we mean traits that are produced by the person? I disagree that such a thing exists. And if they are not produced by the person, the label personality is misleading. What if they are constituted not in the person, but in the environment, and are intrinsically unstable? Behavioral Genetics or scientific studies? Let's not be vague. Also, behavioral genetics are riddled with assumptions you probably never even dreamed about, that confound and invalidate their results. However, there is *some* merit to their results. That is, traits are somewhat caused by genetics, and are sometimes stable. But this does not mean genetics is important as a cause. Genetic causes flourish in deficient environments, logically. So a genetic cause might signify the importance of the environment, as opposed to the importance of genetics. Think about that last one. An identical twin that develops a disorder, can have a twin that does not develop the disorder. (Duh! I know). The key is the conditions that prevented the disorder, not the fact that genes are sometimes involved. If the conditions that prevent the disorder are minimum conditions that are supposed to be in the environment (such as care or good nutrition), the genetics is not as important. Haziness is necessary for clarity. Here, I'm still a little hazy myself. However, I stated a working hypothesis that the *self* which does exist by the way, may be constituted by general principles such as implicit acknowledgement of existence (an internal aspect), and the fact that this existing self is situated in an environment and must react to it (an external principle). This self can also be denied. Along those lines...
  5. The definition you were going against! Now that's just gibberish. Honestly take a liguistics course. Your "body is influenced by the environment" and makes it not yours according to my argument? Lol... That's a new one! What in heavens do you, or can you, mean by this funny assertion? If you are talking about nutritional and developmental factors acting on your body, then whichever part of the process is influenced by the environmet is influenced by the environment, and which ever part is influenced via genes is influenced via genes. Personality, implies that the person produces the traits. If this is not so, why imply it? Comon Mokele... Wha? What does this have to do with anything? You're not saying much... With some exceptions, the environment produces behaviors. Ofcourse, by mediation of genetic endowment. Adios Amigos
  6. More of an argument than a preconception. Furthermore, before answering "how one gets X," one needs to know what X is, which is the question I've implicitly initiated. How are we going to discuss something when we are actually discussing different things or nothing? Let the opener of the thread explain what s/he means by personality, then the thread will be on track. I think its unfair to simply pin this on selected individuals.
  7. Not if those memories and experiences are not part of the person. Furthermore, despite the "simplistic beauty" and crowd-pleasing, the definition you've agreed to is not the mainstream definition. So the critiques on this thread are more than apt.
  8. Close! My avator is Persian, but not Zoroastrian. Furthermore, he is known as the best Persian Scientist (Abu-Ali Sina, or Avicenna, go look him up), though he may be one of the best, or the best, Persian doctor and philosopher. I believe he started the ethanol treatment. So when I come here I come with a science orientation, but well aware of the flaws of science, especially with regard to my own specialty, Psychology.
  9. I'm using "environment" to mean what is in the external environment in relation to the subjective agent. In my example, torture is part of the external environment. Genes, are the inherited internal environment. Just because some genes don't mix well with irrational, controllable, and preventable acts such as torture, it doesn't mean that these genes are causally important. I'm really not sure if you're following this. Maybe it's more simple that you first assumed.
  10. Ok, now I catch ya. I'm saying that there is no such thing as personality and personality is just an illusion. The idea is that the self is the only thing that exists, and the brain operations the self allows are what we think is personality, eventhough these are made by the environment and can be retracted by the self at any time. In the case of Down's Syndrome, the same thing applies. Brain processes and behavior are influenced by the environment, and do not (in my opinion) constitute personality, while the self is the definition I gave in the previous post.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.