ramin

Hi ramin' date=' is your prof still doing that? If so, he should sleep only 1.5 hour tonight, and 0 hour in another three weeks or so. I really think he is just kidding.

 

I can sleep 2~3 hours during weekday, but have to catch up the lost sleep during the weekend. [/quote']

 

 

He's up to 4 hours now, but a healthy lad. And no, he wasn't joking. It was 2 hours for a while... Pretty impressive.

[b']You, please quit wasting everone's time and close this thread![/b]

How am I wasting time by getting to the point????

Oh yeah, and sorry for the debate.

Deficient environments play a greater role with certain genes!

Sure, why not. In any case, they are deficient and since w/out the deficiency genes are not triggered, genes are unimportant.

What the heck is deficient anyway? Is it the environment or the way the person perceives the environment, reacts to the environment? Make everyone watch PBS, goto church, etc. Some would love this, some would shoot themselves. How do you decide which environment to apply to which person? You have a one size fits all environment for everyone?

Finally, some good questions. I mentioned before a lack of motivation to understand, get close, and be proactive with a child that is not "ideal" or "good" can constitue deficiency. You'll see all over textbooks that parents don't expect much from their children when their children do not do well on an IQ test. Or, parents will react negatively to a "negative" or "difficult" child. These trends, facilitated by the norms and ideals of current popular society, equal deficiency that becomes manifested biologically. A child's negativity can be easily countered with proactivity. In sum, there is no "potential." Things are just the way they seem, that simple. Have you ever heard of reductionism, determinism? That's what's increased.

In other words, I'm not implying a one size fits all in any way. Genes are variability and diversity is good. But the basics my man, the basics, are being washed away.

Twins Mental Disorder

 

Yes, you can use this to argue about the environment again. But, I have never seen a 100% correlation/cure for anything, so I see a huge opportunity for gene therapy someday for bipolar disorder.

What about fixing the cause of the disorder: society, instead of blaming genes and letting politicians get away with bad decisions?

I agree, so if you have one child that is calm and cool and another that is a pain in the a**, then you TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY. They may need a DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT. So, being ignorant of a gene that may predispose them to whatever would be an uninformed environment.

Oh yes, I totally agree. Uninformed and inactive environment is a huge problem. But you saw past my point. I'm saying that the way the child is reacted to depends much less on the child than on the nature of the environment. Is that clearer?

Yes, I pulled this out of my magic hat. Where did you pull your BS out of?

So now you're agreeing with BS?

And why are you all so pissed off about this? This blaming genes seems to be a trend that you all have been influenced with, otherwise it wouldn't be so darn hard to have a conversation about. This is what page 23?

Genetics determine how an organism will react to its environment. Some genes can be triggered by environment factors, but not most. Genes are accountable for almost every behavioral and physical peculiarity of a human being.

Can you provide some explanation?

Do you know anything about plasticity or the "critical period"?

What's the confirmed body count in Iraq now, 100,000?

In politics fragile situations tend to explode in your face when you do not handle with care.

 

The Bush administrations foreign policies and use of the media to intimidate the rest of the world is working... But they are too stupid to realize the consequences of their actions.

 

N. Korea has nukes' date=' and will not disarm them because they are intimidated by the U.S. foreign policies[/url']

 

 

 

Can anyone honestly say they feel safer since the Bush administration began "making the world safer"?

The sad thing about all this is the bush-basher bashers. It's not a matter of just "blaming." Obviously this president has problems with honesty and method. The only justification for Bush-supporters, in terms of foreign policy, seems to be that "bush-bashers" are "blaming Bush."

Perhaps the low level of sophistication of this argument is not apparent?

Newtonian, I have an idea for us. I say, either pick one of the claims in the last bolded post, or, give your answer to this question:

What factors during development influence a person to become who they are?

Feel free to give your opinion as well Azure, or if anyone else has an answer...

I'm sorry' date=' you're right, I don't know what's going on in my head . But eighteen years of senility can't just be tossed out the window . My genes won't allow it ... and while I'm being civil, I wasn't doing it for the "biased crowd" I was simply venting some unfair frustrations . Are we okay ? Good. I promise not to add anything else unless it's composed of actual insights, ideas, or rebuttals (sp?)

 

Truce?

 

oh, and I think we'd all benefit if you and newtonian reached a similar understanding. I realize things are tense, but let's all just take a big breath, and cleanse our thoughts. Petty disputes between close-minded factions like this are exactly what's been holding the human race back. scientifically, socially, and politically[/quote']

 

Truce

EVERYONE, PLEASE, INSTEAD OF WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME, RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING. THIS IS THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD:

We can continue the argument in a more precise manner. My main claim is not about single disorders like Huntington's etc; it is about the missing link in thinking about development and disorders. What follows is that genetics is unimportant in many cases that they are currently being emphasized, or even mentioned.

The missing link is that 1-genetic contribution is greater in deficient environments. And so, we must take this under consideration. If a genetic contribution does not exist in a different, sufficient environment, usually in the form of a proactive environment, then the genetics are not important and the environment only should be the focus of improvement. This means, depression, drug-abuse, and to a good extent (but perhaps not fully) disorders such as schizophrenia and autism (though I can't be certain about severe autism as of yet), should not be deemed genetic disorders. They do not exist in basically sufficient environments.

2- heriditary estimates are flawed because the similarities they detect could be due to social forces such as imitation; furthermore, their assumptions are misleading and without evidence. One admitted assumption of these estimates are that each environment could be deficient. They simply have no way of finding out via their method.

3- the child's negative temperment does not bring a negative reaction. That's a temporary correlation. The cause is the nature of the environment reacting to the child. A negative temperment can become a positive one in an informed environment.

The argument is that genetics are "important" in deficient environments, and so, they are not important.

Yes, you don't get it. Keep working on it though...

Ok Ramin give us something to work with.Everything said to you is dismissed as a def/enviro.So give us a defined adequate environment,sufficient environment,informed environment.WHATEVER to give us a base to start from.

Your obviously at a loss that, defective genes affect the organism regardless of environmental factors.

You never answered my question about ADHT.

Which cult is teaching you this stuff?

What is the full discription of your course?

I feel this would be of benefit to other posters,to research the subject for ourselves.Look at it as peer review.

You may be bottom of your class and not understand just what their teaching you!

EDIT

I will post some links that show genetic disorders.

Talk about cults, you've obviously learned that freedom means not caring for kids, so letting "vulnerable genetics" have an effect, so ultimately your whole society can be fooled and take advantage of other societies. And hey, if any other societies want to buy it, great. You've followed the ultimate cult. I've obviously thought things through, and you just don't get it. Can it be more simple than this:

"The argument is that genetics are "important" in deficient environments, and so, they are not important."

If you don't want to respond to this, or any bolded material on this thread, then you're avoiding the argument.

You've been rude, avoided the argument throughout, and have even been rude, subjective, with an oppressive attitude towards people with disorders.

Your arguments have been simply angry "BS's" and "everything is proven" w/out providing any tangible proof which must be accompanied with an argument. Haven't you learned that empirical evidence can be interpreted tens of ways? You have to accompany your evidence with an argument, that also responds to counter-arguments such as mine.

Save yourself the embarrassment. I bet anything many people have been relieved that someone dogmatic-promoting like you is being refuted, but have not written anything. Its because its hard to both pinpoint your biases, and further, there is pressure to conform. I have none of those pressures, and I've pinpointed about ten of your biases consistently here, and remained unanswered with regard to my argument. You have provided absolutely no analysis that a majority of disorders deemed disorders today, develop regardless of environmental factors. This is another unscientific sweeping notion of yours. Neither does anyone agree with that statement, even on this highly biased thread.

I really don't know what you are doing in a scienceforums site with this stuff. You should go to some religion invention sites or something...

WHAT THE FRICKIN' HELL DO YOU HAVE AGAINST MONKEYS? Where is this evidence that monkey psychology is nothing like a human's? Are you basing this off of some spectacular insight you've had' date=' and have tested in the lab to prove our supremacy? Doubtful. Don't just dismiss the monkey thing. Address it in a way that supports your opinion.

[/quote']

 

Who said I have anything against monkeys? I love monkeys!

 

What's going on in YOUR head?

Okay, I realize you're giving some expalnations for other things that occasionally mave at least a MARGINAL (AT LEAST!!! LEAST!!!! AT LEAST IMPLIES "QUITE POSSIBLY/PROBABLY MORE!!!!!! ALL THE WAY UP TO YOUR PRECIOUS 'SUBSTANTIAL', EVEN COMPLETE AND UTTER!!!!!!!") explanation. But you refuse to address why our theories are wrong, not by shwoing us the flaws in ours, but by preaching for the strengths in yours. You're not willing to even discuss those matters. If you think I'm gonna call you after this, you can forget it. Maybe Coral will help me with the wolf experiment. Coral's a guy, right?

These jokes are pathetic Azure. I suggest you go a little slower and don't jump to conclusions simply to please an already biased crowd.

If the only conversation here' date='was that deficient environments could contribute to mental disorders in a wide spectrum of phenotypes.Then the majority here would agree,as its common knowledge.My 93 yr old grandmother(who's only interest is a life spent playing Bingo)knows that.Hardly worthy of a Uni-degree.

But Ramin is clearly stating that disorders i.e Autism are the direct result of environmental factors.Frankly if i was a parent of an Autistic child i would be greatly offended.In fact presently known genetic evidence would point us to accept the reverse of this threads title

[b']Genetics are definitely important[/b]

Ramin are you aware of ADHT.I would be interested to read your take on this,and wether you attribute it to your DE

The argument is that genetics are "important" in deficient environments, and so, they are not important. If you have a degree, and can't understand this, than your Uni degree isn't worth anything.

And, did I blame anything on autistic parents? I clearly stated that a deficient environment is produced by negative social trends.

Furthermore, You have shown no evidence that genetics are important in most disorders or autism

I want to be clear here, however, in what sense I am saying they are not important. I am saying they are not important when talking about causes/etiology.

No the degree to which the defective gene affect the organism is the determining factor.A geneticist would explain a little better.

Take schizophrenia although a great deal is known about its biology' date=' the causes of schizophrenia have not yet fully been elucidated.Hence your argument. Through twin and adoption studies, we know that there is an inherited genetic component.Environmental stress may manifest or contribute to episodes of this illness,equally regardless of environment schizophrenia will not be manifested.Indicating environment only playing a minor role,and genetics as causal.[/quote']

 

Your logic is all wrong. Everyone knows there is a necessary environment element for schizophrenia. In any case, this is one of the more extreme examples. My post indicates that my argument applies to a great extent, but not fully.

A cop out,and untrue.

The majority of individuals on this planet can relate to a shitty upbringing.In the 50's many were poor ,i remember queing up in school to recieve shoes that were donated by more affluent pupils parents.I remember the majority of xmas's getting nothing more than an apple/orange and a few sweets.Hey i was no isolated case,it was hard times which affected society at the time.

There was no childline in the 50's many were physically and mentally abused,along with their mother(divorce wasnt so easy then)

To simplify the point there are millions starving,suffering genocide,poverty,orphaned ,unloved etc.How deficient an environment could they be.Yet according to your argument,the majority of the population of the planet should be running around nutters.The fact that they are not indicates that environment plays a minor role.

 

Not even close. You've changed the definition of deficiency to adequacy. Being poor in no way means having a deficient environment. Uncared for is the only one I agree with in your statement.

 

And here is your response, please read and answer to it carefully:

 

If two people are uncared for, and one develops disorder X and another does not, you would say that genetics is important?

 

This is also a response to your following analysis:

 

Not exactly' date='they will have the defective genes.The way that these affect /and to what degree the organism is unknown presently.However as you point out in some the disorder will manifest itself,in others it wont.Regardless of environmental stress,the disease will not neccersarily manifest.But later generations it may.

In a nutshell environmental stress,certainly will not help people with a disposition to mental illness,though equally certain it will not cause episodes of mental illness.

An individual can be in the most horrendous of environments and be well adjusted.An individual could be in the happiest of environments and be a pathological fruitcake.Which to me at least indicates a genetic cause.[/quote']

 

Except this part:

 

An individual could be in the happiest of environments and be a pathological fruitcake.Which to me at least indicates a genetic cause.

 

What do you mean happiest of environments. If that environment is "happy" but neglects something basic, it is deficient, and allows pathology. I bet you wont' be able to explain the conditions for this "happy" environment relative to the child.

 

So thus far, you still don't establish how genetics are important in the majority of cases.

 

Calling people pathological fruitcakes is the very defition of today's trend of deficient environments. Only in a deficient environment would someone label mental problems in that manner.

In fact we know there is an hereditory component in alcoholism. There are neurological differences in the brains of alcoholics' date=' localised to the left hemisphere (I can't remember the precise location). This difference has been observed in the sons of alcoholics. It is passed down the male line.

 

You are right about the environment. This hereditory component provides a [i']propensity[/i] for alcoholism, but it does not guarantee the individual will become an alcoholic. In effect, it just increases the probability (risk) significantly above those without this difference.

 

The same has been observed in primates. There are those with a propensity for uncontrolled drinking, and those who find the effects of alcohol aversive. This, within the same species. This occurs at a resort at which these animals regularly come down to scavange food and drink left by tourists. In this case, the environment plays a significant role, because it is that which determines access to alcohol. Nonetheless, within that environment, there are still those who will go to extreme lengths to scavange alcoholic drinks, and those who avoid it and scavange only soft drinks. A good example of a nature/nurture interaction, I thought.

 

The nature/nurture debate is old. It has been many years since anyone argued for the sole influence of one or the other. Most people now acknowledge that both play a significant role and these days look at the relative impacts of each.

That's the very issue. Genetics and Environment being both important is incredibly vague, is it not? We can't just dismiss the argument with that statement. The argument I am making, Glider, is that genetics are important determinants in deficient environments. Yes, you see the impact of genetics on alcoholism, but in deficient environments. Furthermore, the use of primate examples is unwarranted to explain human tendencies, as it does not prove anything. The environment could be deficient in both environments, or in only the primates'.

That is exactly why I posted this topic, because this is always overlooked, just as you've shown. Genetics can be linked causally in deficient environments, while they are unimportant in adequate environments. This does not substantiate that "genetics and environment both play an important role." It only substantiates that environment does.

Do you see this?

Furthermore, you mentioned some brain differences. Have you considered the plasticity of the brain functions in question before using this in your argument?

Last, are you aware of the assumptions underlying heridity estimates? One of the assumptions is that the environment may be deficient. So how important is this?

HAHA DAMN SMILIE FACE! Ok correction I havent updated. I'm suppose to be thirteen... And it's not me who's setting high standards... its my parents....

Well you should set high standards for yourself...

Also, let me clarify something for everyone on this thread. We can continue the argument in a more precise manner. My main claim is not about single disorders like Huntington's etc; it is about the missing link in thinking about development and disorders. What follows is that genetics is unimportant in many cases that they are currently being emphasized, or even mentioned.

The missing link is that 1-genetic contribution is greater in deficient environments. And so, we must take this under consideration. If a genetic contribution does not exist in a different, sufficient environment, usually in the form of a proactive environment, then the genetics are not important and the environment only should be the focus of improvement. This means, depression, drug-abuse, and to a good extent (but perhaps not fully) disorders such as schizophrenia and autism (though I can't be certain about severe autism as of yet), should not be deemed genetic disorders. They do not exist in basically sufficient environments.

2- heriditary estimates are flawed because the similarities they detect could be due to social forces such as imitation

3- the child's negative temperment does not bring a negative reaction. That's a temporary correlation. The cause is the nature of the environment reacting to the child. A negative temperment can become a positive one in an informed environment.

I'm sure there is more, but I'm sure they will come up soon...

its documented knowledge, especially here in Arizona, that Native Americans often tend to have alcoholic tendencies. The funny thing is, no matter how nice any of them happen to be, they're almost always going to be truly angry, mean drunks. My dad knows, he's a cop. Plus i'm a quarter navajo cherokee blend or somethin' like that, also from my father's side, but this time from his mother. she was a beautiful, lovely person, but one hell of a bitch when she downed a coupla glasses of wine. That seems to carry marginal genetic weight, don't it?

No AzurePhoenix, ofcourse not. That's what they want you to think. Look at how much you are neglecting by your very statement, and even, look at your very statement. You are alleging marginal genetic weight. First, then, who gives a darn about something marginal in comparison to something substantial? Second, there are clear, complete, social explanations for First Nation drug and/or alcohol abuse, as well as anger, in this day in age, such as that Natives on the whole have lost identity and society.

A Deficient Environment can be blamed for anything genetic in regards to psychological disorders.

Sure it could, but currently the trend is to do the opposite. Its much harder to say a genetic disorder such as Huntington's is due to the environment. Much easier to say drug-addiction, depression, anxiety, and mysteries such as autism, are genetic. That's the issue.

I understand your worry that people will sit back and blame their genes. Well, people will try to blame anything - the environment, government, genes, America, terrorists, etc. Understanding ones strengths and weaknesses is ok in my book. That doesn't mean give up on the weaknesses, no you may need to work that much harder to overcome them.

That's exactly what I'm saying is going on here. Running away from responsible, accountable, society.

I fail to understand what is so magical about psychological issues that seperate them from physical issues.

Psychology can be influenced by ideology, and so can biopsychology. But not biology.

Of course on the aggregate, the environment rules but in regards to an individual, people respond differently to the same stimulus.

Why not? (I agree) Diversity and variability exists and is good. The problem arises when the environment becomes simplistic and does not attend to differences. Then differences can become pathological.

I'd prefer to wait for Newtonian's response before offering my opinion.

Well don't wait for much

 

Did you respond to my questions in your post #88?

Yes I did. I mentioned that many other things have gone up as well, such as neglect. Neglect can turn biological differences into disorders.

How do you know I am running? How do you know I am not listening?

Because you didn't respond to my argument. You can't blame genetics when there is a deficient environment allowing the genetics to take a certain path. Drug addiction is not even a matter of dispute. It is genetic only when someone is neglected and does not develop the right control. Sure, some might be born with better control, but that's irrelevant since control can be easily accomplished with a good environment. You see?

most people (I don't exclude you.) seem to be offering many opinions with little evidence.

Ofcourse you won't exclude me. I clearly presented just as logical of a position on autism as other explanations, even more logical. And the genes vs. environment thing is just obvious via simple logic, in accordance with empirical evidence.

I am also wondering if you have an agenda. With all respect to your mention of a deficient environment, which I think you are saying results from deficient care, I have no idea what your solution to that deficiency might be. For all I know you want to execute parents who do not understand their child's every nuance. I think that might be a little extreme.

That is extreme, and I never said it. I said some norms and social influences and trends constitute the deficient environment. The parents, and even some institutions, are caught in the middle. For example, there is a high motivation for conformity, no matter what that entails. That poses pressures on children that start out different.

Of course' date=' there may be a genetic component to it. I think certain people are predisposed to become addicted to whatever - drugs, religion, exercise, etc.

 

I must add that any addiction is a complex thing. All people who are addicts were not necessarily predisposed to it, just as all addicts weren't necessarily influenced by their environment.[/quote']

 

 

Did you get all this out of your magic hat?

What ramin, you don't want to take up my offer on a decisive study? If you played your cards right, you could play and integral part , though I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you.

Call me

Have you seen those studies involving red foxes somewhere in europe i believe, in which over eighteen or twenty generations the people bred for people-friendly personalities in the foxes. Over each generation, by reinforcing the friendly genes, the began to develope floppy ears, spotted coats, even shorter snouts, as well as domestic dog-like characteristics, despite the fact that only personality was chosen for, implying a close association of personality and physical appearance on the gene in question. Now, if a purebred of one of these kits is raised next to a kit with a wild father and a captive bred mother, the hybrid displays clear wild-type behaviors, including wariness, aggression, and other wild-dog behaviors, wheras the "pure breed" is as docile as a golden retriever.

And that's where dogs and humans differ: cognitive power

It might be necessary though, because psychology w/out sociology is so incomplete. Also, won't people in the future be interested? And don't all the sciences apply to the science of society and social consciousness? I would think an engineer would have a say so in sociology more than psychology.

i don't know' date=' every member of my paternal family chronically, unconciously taps their foot. My grandfather did, he died by the time my father was six. My dad didn't start tapping until he was in his teens, but evetually he did. I tap quite vehemently, as do my aunt's five kids, even though it skipped their mom from my grandfather, and was never an issue in their father. The only person in my immediate family who doesn't is a brother who is more similar to my step-sister, who was raised from infancy as one of us. Also, each of us descended from my father's father is a chronic nail-biter, lip-biter, and head scratcher. Except for one cousin, who is also the only brunette in the family, and is also the only one who displays the overweight qualities of my non-blood, brunette uncle, versus us blonde, thin descendents of my grandpappy. Though he doesn't nail or lip bite, this cousin is a head scratcher and foot-tapper.

 

Granted, some of this is probably influenced by our environmental development, but there are simply too many little coincidences regarding phenotype and personality despite similar or identicle backgrounds. Why is the only physical anomaly, and the only step-child, the only ones with inconsistant quirks? And don't say the differing appearance of these two anomalies contributed to their psychological independence, because the step-sister looks more like me and my dad than one of my brothers.

 

I know this is far from scientific proof, but i feel its at least a slightly interesting example which might actually apply. I know they aren't really disorders, but all the things I mentioned are certainly annoying enough to qualify as psyche defficiencies in my book. At least the nail biting is. Disgusting habit, but I just can't stop. It's like the funky chicken, or eating J.Box tacos[/quote']

 

 

I see what you're saying, but there are many other ways of describing the data, many. For example, researchers are finding out that the subconscious receives ALOT of information from the environment, huge loads. And so, subconscious imitation of someone, especially someone who we are likely to identify with, is clearly prevalent.

Another interpretation: you all lived basically under the same circumstances.

 

Put these two together and you get a whole lot of family members being the same.

 

Go look at graphs or "heriditary envidence" of schizophrenia, a very "biological" disorder compared to depression, drug-abuse etc, comparable to autism. Even this disorder cannot be fully explained via biology or biased heriditary findings because some people with the same amount of shared genes as another with schz, will not have the disease.

 

The main point, and the reason why genetics are unimportant, is that they are unimportant. If the environment has a deficiency, and that triggers genes to take pathological paths, why should we blame it on genes like the people above are doing? That's dogmatic and odd. Very simply, we have to improve the environment. Yet, at this very moment, for many the environment is being worsened or staying highly deficient.

 

Furthermore, any habit can be stopped almost. I'd say implicit labels and associations deter change.

 

The way developmental psychologists, and obviously many new generation people like the people on this forum, think, is that the kid acts on his/her environment and if the kid is negative, then the parent is negative. That's absurd! The parent's negativity is due to the parent and their environment. So we end up treating life deterministically, continuously accepting things as they "are" without exerting effort to provide kids' actual needs.

Newtonian' date='

 

I am interested in why you exclude addiction to drugs as be excluded from illness that are "scientifically proven" to be genetic. Could you expand [b']just a little[/b] -- without of course violating the exceptional integrity of this thread?

You probably think drug abuse is genetic too? Haven't you been reading my argument? Respond to the variable of deficient environment and stop running away!