ramin

Ok i will only respond to the above' date='which is two sentences.The first part even to a layman is absurd.The second sentence is plain rubbish.

[b']People with a pre-dispositon for mental illness,will always manifest that disability under a stressfull environment.[/b]Did you read that,good because that statement i just typed is BS.Factual and statistical BS.If all your interested in is talking psycho babble,then your conversing with the wrong person.Statistically the majority of vulnerable phenotypes are going about their daily lives well adjusted individuals(even here in this forum )regardless of environment.Statistically mental illness or psychological disorders(not counting drug abuse etc)have been scientifically proven to be genetic.

NO i wont post links!

So your argument is that with no argument genetics is the cause for mental illness or psychological disorders? "Newtonian," take a logic course. Do the world a favour, with your brave dogma and distortion, and take a logic course.

And I shouldn't forget the other part of your argument, that what I say is BS and yours is factual and statistical. That's good.

Also, you can't use words such as "proven" and get away with it. Saying something is proven when it isn't promotes dogma and when it comes to finding clear social solutions for disorders, it is oppressive.

Good day.

I'm sorry Ramin, I'm trying to properly respect your argument, but could you please define your "deficient environment" so that maybe I can get a better handle?

If I was going to simplify the case I would say: decreased motivation to understand and care for a person directly.

But deficient environment is no doubt relative to the person. Its whatever exists or does not exist external to a person's subjective state. If a person needs certain things, many others might not, but if it is basic and the environment doesn't provide it, the environment is deficient. These certain things may be guidance, perspective taking, spending time, proactive care.

Ramin' date=' have you considered that other illnesses comorbid with autism may be causal?

 

Please tell me your theory about egression (loss of developmental milestones).

 

What is your opinion of the notion that the rise of vaccination, especially the DPT vaccine, has caused an increase in the incidence of autism.

 

Do you agree or disagree that the most powerful environmental influence is the womb?[/quote']

 

Other things have been on the rise, such as decreased responsibility of parents and society, as well as lack of empathy and understanding. As with many other disorders, a child's biological makeup might expect certain things, and if not received, their behavior will be unregulated or pathological.

Are you simply stating gene's are triggered by enviroment, so enviroment is lead and genetics secondary?

Not quite. I'm saying genes don't constitute fixed behaviors later on. The environment determines how genes are to be manifested. In deficient environments, as is implied by "deficient," factors that are supposed to lead to normal behavior are not supplied, and thus the genetic makeup of the person becomes important in determining their pathology. Because if the environment was good the genes would not lead to pathology, I'm saying genes should not be stressed causally.

its been 4 pages and i still have no clue what he's trying to argue, i thought i knew, but i guess i didnt

You thought I was saying the genes are not relevant to most disorders. Then you saw that people say genes are important, and they have evidence of it. Then I said that for the most part those genes are only manifested in deficient environments.

Now do you get it?

Nobody here is saying that environment does not play a part in some pschological disorders,which has been observed for along time.

Environment does not just play a role, it plays the relevant role. You should have understood my argument by now. My argument is not that enviornment plays A role, but that it plays THE RELEVANT role, for most disorders. Genetics is, as mentioned, almost irrelevant.

Statistics point to a combination of hereditory and environmental factors.

You don't have to repeat your vague and unsubstantiated notions. Where did you read this statistics thing? I've read it too, but like a true psychologist should, I've analyzed it carefully and now see past it. The results of the hereditory factors have unsubstantiated assumptions, and are clearly biased. So once again, you have no argument. It's obvious you are trying to act like you know while you don't. You don't understand the argument, and have a hard time explaining anything.

But this is hardly groundbreaking intellectual insight on your part.

The fact that genetics is for the most part irrelevant? Obviously that is groundbreaking, literally.

In fact we can equally say with justification,regardless of environment some people develope psych/dis some dont.So your enviro/def on the whole is a flawed argument.One which is supplanted by genetics

Regardless of environment? No, only a minority of psychological disorders such as Huntington's. Anyone who's informed knows at least that much. Even schizophrenia requires environmental stresses. The majority of disorders, no matter what their pervasiveness, require deficient environments. There is consensus on this issue. Now, what seems to be out of the intellect of today's psychologist is that genetics is for the most part irrelevant. Tracing a disease to a genetic cause DOES NOT MEAN GENETICS ARE IMPORTANT. Vulnerable phenotypes will for the most part be manifested pathologically in deficient environments.

If you are to respond to anything I say, you will have to respond to the last sentence.

I don't have a problem with that.

So now you're directing criticism at me (as I had previously assumed) for what reason?

With respect,it is you who has ascribed known genetic disorders (autism etc)as psychological disorders,and environmental deficiency as the causal agency.

Again with the autism. Do you know anything about the disorder?

Furthermore, my main argument is with regard to the paradigm which excludes intense environmental variability. What follows is that disorders as pervasive as autism could be curtailed environmentally, even if the kids are genetically predisposed: NOTE, however, that there is little evidence that the differences in brain of autistics is prenatal. And, as mentioned before, even if it is prenatal, it does not mean that it is the cause. Environmental deficiency is still fully plausible. The logic goes again: Two kids have different genes, but the same environment. One develops a disorder, another doesn't. This does not mean the disorder is genetic- it could very well be because of a deficient environment. Difference does not mean disorder. There could be enough plasticity in the brain region (I believe in the case of autism it is the limbic system) that given a good environment, the brain takes a normal path, or functions normally.

This applies to an intensely higher degree for most other psychological disorders and conflicts, making genetics really simply irrelevant.

Ramin' date='

Perhaps you can explain Down syndrome.And chromosome 21?

I see alot of people here have given you the opportunity to explain yourself.Without the usual ridicule that posts like yours merit.I would feel that you should be honoured, to be allowed to have the floor like this.And to answer good points others have put to you.Please explain to us mere mortals how environment deficiency attributes to causing the mentioned (our factual,but to you presumed genetic disorders)

 

If im correct and all your argument is founded on is reptiles in the egg.How environmental temperature and humidity alter the actual snakes development/sex ect.Perhaps if you ask Mokele nicely,he will explain this in more detail.[/quote']

 

You should read the thread before you comment. I'm talking paradigms, and *most* psychological disorders. Naming one or two genetic retardations is not relevant. Also, please be polite.

Ramin

The question is why there isn't a sociology thread, while there is a psychology thread. The two approaches are very different, yet related, thus very important to co-exist. Can you give me a good response on this?

Yes. Spelling.

 

Romaji represents the sounds of the Japanese language. What you wrote has literally no meaning.

 

 

 

Stop being obtuse. The "debate"' date=' as you call it is, [u']being conducted[/u] in a farcical manner.

Exactly why you are projecting your own negativity onto that statement by assuming it was aimed diretly at you, or that it is analagous to criticism of your ideas, is your problem and not mine.

 

Anyway, that's beside the point: if you are repeating my name back to me as a super-clever means of dismissal, then you've already been dismissed by the same device. SEE HOW THAT WORKS?

By directing the comment at the thread, you implicitly directed the comment at me at least partially. Nevertheless, I apologize. I did not dismiss myself however. The intent was that if you don't like the topic, you're the one that is missing out. It turns out you like the topic?

Don't forget to try the east a bit for classical as well. Out of the Europeans, boy do I love Bach... You know he's credited in books on consciousness for a profound, perhaps the most, "musical information"? That's sweeeet...

The title should explain its self but...I'm getting B's in some of my classes cause I see no point of studying and im getting lazy....Psssh yeah ok. So please make this go away! ITS KILLING ME!

Accountability is the most important factor in that kind of motivation. You have to be accountable to yourself. Your life has a meaning, you have certain goals, and you following your goals enables you to function well with others. I would simply delve into the social life intead of withdrawal, and monitor myself to make sure I'm living up to my own potential.

This is for sure incomplete...

So I worded it wrong... The question is why there isn't a sociology thread, while there is a psychology thread. The two approaches are very different, yet related, thus very important to co-exist. Can you give me a good response on this?

cripes, that bacteria reference implies environmental effect, don't it? you know what? it doesn't matter, because the environment does play a huge role in the devlopement of personality, a role certainly big enough to be forced to take into account and consider when applying to every individual. but the smae goes for genetics. we'd be incomplete without both, together, working in unison to create a single wholesome (or too often deficient) sentient entity

The thing is AzurePhoenix, that how important are genes in most cases? The popularity of blaming genes is under a fully flawed paradigm. The paradigm explicitly states that the environment is a function of the child's actions, not its own nature and variability. There is obviously a huge problem with that. There is less and less proactive communication with infants, children, and people in general, constituting a deficient system and norms, which for some phenotypes means not enough environmental stimulation to develop necessary areas of the brain correctly. Some phenotypes need a good environment, some don't. Genes obviously has something to do with it. But here's the punchline: when there is a deficient environment. So this means genes are not at all as important as commonly held, and applied. That's the logic.

That's a wrap for you folks. Let people who are interested in debate, understanding others' perspective, and not throbbing with defensiveness and insult participate.

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

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

You haven't noticed that I've responded to every single comment with an argument? Let's see yours now....

 

Here it is!

 

 

 

So how do you explain that twins reared *apart* are *far* more identical than even siblings raised together?

 

 

"Their environments are the same. Also' date=' are they both disordered? The argument is that genetics is not important in disorders.

Also, just a note that the sample of identicals reared apart is highly biased."

 

Then your entire arguement is a fallacy of false dilema. Bad environment can *trigger* genes that would have otherwise never mattered

 

How is this important again? If the environment triggers genes that would have been unimportant if the environment wasn't insufficient, you prove my point!

 

 

or accelerate or worse pre-existinge genetic factors.

 

This is very vague. What do you mean? Do you have an example?

 

 

The foolishly simplistic notion of "nature *or* nurture" has long since been abandoned. Both play a role' date=' and both genes and environment can interact, in a suprising number of ways. [/quote']

 

You're misunderstanding my argument. Ofcourse both play a role. But the role of genetics is almost not important at all.

 

And evolution is do to what? Oh' date=' that's right, *genes*.

 

And what governs the development of you from a zygote into a human embryo then fetus? *Genes*.[/quote']

 

 

 

Genes is not the beginning or the end. It is simply a code that makes an organism pathological in a deficient environment.

 

 

I hardly agree that it is overlooked, but even if it is, that's no excuse for going to the opposite extreme which is just as foolish and unsupportable.

 

 

Foolish? Not with your arguments at all. Furthermore, my comments have clearly shown its overlooked:

 

"The best clue I can think of right now against arguments made FOR genetic importance, is the ridiculousness of the paradigms used. The paradigm is that genetics produce an early temperment which influences reactions from the environment. Yet, for some mysterious reason, the fact that only certain types of environment would "react" instead of proact towards a child is fully left out. The real paradigm should clearly state that a child is reacted to depending on the nature of the reacting environment."

 

 

And how does the organism detect it's environment and process that information?

 

Oh' date=' that's right, with senory cells that are coded for by *genes*, and a neural system laid down according to *genes*. The neural system can change, but the overall form and instincts are in *genes*.

 

Or perhaps you could offer an explanation of why a Queen snake fresh from the egg that is exposed to q-tips soaked in extracts of various organisms will only strike at the crayfish-soaked one? We're talking about *all* individuals in the species displaying the *same* reaction to a stimulus that occurs literally the moment they stick their nose out of their eggs. What other than genes can explain that?

 

All oganisms have *some* level of genetic control over their behavior, and *some* level of environmental control. The levels of each, and the complexity of their interactions, often depends on the complexity of the organism. Environmental factors don't matter nearly as much as genes in a jellyfish, but in a human it's more complex. But to deny the influence of genes altogether, while using a body and brain those genes built for you, is foolish.

 

Mokele [/quote']

 

 

"The snake and human environment are very different. You should've known that anyone can use that against your argument. Environment shapes the biology of humans that is relevant to disorders. The fact that genes code the beginning biology is no argument at all, since that starting biology can become anywhere inbetween pathalogical to non-pathalogical in all kinds of domains in just a few days even, depending on the environment. You've overlooked the critical period of biological development fully. Biology clearly takes various paths due to environment. That's why I'm saying that biology is overemphasized: because people think everything causal is biology, just as you've just done, while that is very false, and while that promotes determinism, and ironically (as freedom is "embedded" in Western culture) a far smaller human free will than true. Biology is the medium between environment and behavior.

 

 

 

They provide a starting template when the child enters the world. If the environment is deficient or uncaring' date=' this template will not develop into a happy and well-functioning organism.

 

 

The current paradigm of nature-nurture interaction leaves out the variability in the environment that contributes to development!

 

 

About the paradigm: it says the environment depends on the child's temperment, while environments are radically different with each other intrinsically.

 

 

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.

 

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

Genetics can be blamed for anything in a deficient environment[/quote']

 

I guess you're not good at this...

ANYONE WHO WANTS TO RESPOND HAS TO RESPOND TO THIS CLAIM:

Genetics can be blamed for anything in a deficient environment

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

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.

Psychology John, psychology...

New York Times online has this article on autism:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/health/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' date=' I'll make it bold. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO RESPOND HAS TO RESPOND TO THIS CLAIM:

[b']Genetics can be blamed for anything in a deficient environment[/b]

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.

Genes load the gun, environment pulls the trigger

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

okay' date=' 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 [/quote']

 

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?

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

oooh spelling

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"?