Void

Dreams...Not sure what the lastest research says, but this is what I remember...

1. Consolidate new inforamtion into one's life history.

2. Are a function of processing the only information available during sleep...i.e. memories/experience...May be related to #1.

A little simplified, but what I currrently understand them as...

The best punishment is love.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=62

Try this area...more appropriate.

Well' date=' to get my argument just ask yourself how a behaviorist comes up with a factor he is going to test to see if it is correlated with a certain behavior. At first you might just say intuition, or random guessing, or whatever else, but as the factors which are correlated to certain behaviors become less and less obviously correlated to the responses you need more and more complicated reasoning to come up with theories to test. Ultimately you would have to have a complete theory of mind to know what factors to examine.

.[/quote']

 

Ok...I am pretending to be a behaviorist...

 

I imagine that by OBSERVING the behavior in question, I would be able to identify particular environmental antecedants. Then, I might try to experimentally manipulate the presence or absense of said stimuli to see if the behavior in question manifests.

 

Now I am a student of modern psychology...

 

"but as the factors which are correlated to certain behaviors become less and less obviously correlated to the responses you need more and more complicated reasoning to come up with theories to test."

 

So lets suppose, I am looking to see if my dog begs when I present food. You would expect that correlation to become smaller over time? Thus requiring a more complicated theory (over an above a simple S-R approach) to explain this?

 

You are not being clear. You probably mean, that as the behavior becomes more complex, you need more elaborate (and reductionistic) behavioral theory to explain it? Uhmmm welcome to the 1960's. This is old news.

The questions that I was referring to were questions like "how do we form ideas"' date=' "how do we think", "what is consiousness" etc. Those tests are not directly testing what the general populace would want to know. Therefore a lot of reasoning is needed in connection with the results to get any useful information out of them.

 

One problem with behaviorism that you wouldn't know what factor to test in relation to a certain behavior without a first person motivated theory of mind. But if you have such a theory developed to a point where you always know what factors to test, you don't need behaviorism anymore because the first person theory contains the information that you REALLY are interested in.

 

Most human reasoning regarding other people's behavior consists of them manipulating their own experiences to mimic what the other person might be experiencing in their own head. (This is what we substitute for measuring someones mental experience) Empathy, anotherwords. This is an important factor of human behavior in itself. Behaviorism doesn't directly advance the ability to do this.

 

.[/quote']

 

My behaviorism comment was to illustrate that psychologists are interested in more than just mental phenomena, however the questions to which you refer, are lofty goals indeed. I am not quite sure about your TOM examples, I usually just think of the fall of behaviorism as product of the realization that the mind/brain mediates our experience of the world. Whether others are aware of "mind" is another set of questions.

Goodness' date=' 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![/quote']

 

Doesn't that just say something about the effects of shared environment? And it still might be argued that although two individiuals are raised in the same household, they still experience it differently.

 

BTW, Bravo Aswokei!

..Of course' date=' it'll be much more useful once these machines a) have sharper resolution and b) are smaller than a volkswagon. Research subjects typically have difficulty engaging in daily life activities with a magnet the weight of a Buick on their head. ;-)

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Agreed.

Inclusive fitness, isn't it a beautiful thing?

To the best of my knowledge' date=' however, thoughts and memories are *not* personality. From what I understand of it, "personality" refers to how individuals process informations (such as thoughts and memories), rather than the information they are processing. One individual might have a tendency to filter negative experiences through "rose colored glasses", while another might not. The actual experiences, thoughts and memories being filtered aren't the personality, but rather the personality is the presence or absence of the filter (for example).

 

Individuals who have similar experiences will react to them differently and even think about things differently. We can quantify these persistent differences in information processing and test for them, and these *detectable* differences are called "personality".

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

The only problem with that Mokele, is that often, our past experience helps shape and define those filters.

 

Personlity can be defined as emergent tendencies of the person through general system form, function and experience.

...The difference for the most part being the lack of ability to directly test the outcome of every question they might want to answer.

 

I disagree. You can directly measure several "outcomes" in psychology. I'll list them for you:

Galvonic Skin Response

Eye tracking

Reaction time

Heart Rate

Hormone levels

Hours of sleep

Non-verbal cues

Language

Shall I go on?

You can't measure MENTAL phenomena directly BUT you can measure BEHAVIOR directly. Remember behaviorism? Thus, we often infer mental process from behavioral action.

For example, if I want to know how people solve math problems, I obviously can't observe their MENTAL calculation, but I can ASK them to WRITE OUT the steps they take in solving the problem.

And I say to the skeptic, does the difference really matter in this case?

It might, if you believe that the aid of representing something on paper has an effect on solving the problem (which I suspect for complex problems it might).

In addition, it is quite possible to mis-apply scientific methods within any field of science.

Its natural for all humans to analyze each other (unless your narcissistic), it just depends on how much you want to know. What do you want to know?

Woman and men have been shown to react to stress in varying ways. However, regarding a TRAINED athlete, you may not find a systematic difference. I suspect it may be more of personality difference at that level.

If you have the ability, you should search the sports psychology literature.

We really' date=' [i']really[/i] disagree.

 

I didn't write up the whole argument, but here it is, now that everyone is so hasty to overuse their power, or in some cases illusions of power:

 

 

 

Assumption 1: Someone irrationally and ruthlessly tortures a mass of people. As a result, some develop a mental disease, and others don't. If torture was not applied, neither group would develop the disease.

 

Assumption 2: Humans produce mass torture unnecessarily; i.e. there is absolutely no need for or inevitability of mass torture

 

 

Premise 1: There is no justified mechanism for producing mass torture

 

Premise 2: As there is no justification for producing mass torture, there is no justification for needing genes to adjust to torture

 

Conclusion: The torture (environment) is more important than genes

 

 

Can someone yell Alleluiah!

Premise 4: The genetics should not be altered

Back up Hoss...

I do not see how you can conclude that the environment is MORE important. You need to qualify the conditions under which you making these conclusions, and do not believe you are.

UNDER the conditions of torture, the fact that some develop mental disease and some don't is due to genes.

UNDER the conditions that no torture exists, the fact that no one develops mental disease is due to environment.

HA!

Plus, if you think about it on a timeline...

First, torture can be seen as a form of environmental pressure.

Second, if there was not torture in the past, then of course there would not be "torture" adaptations.

Third, by the very fact that your applying pressure, your selecting for individuals who may have genes that increase their chances of survival under said conditions. (i.e. the folks with mental disease aren't looking to good in the reproduction arena)

Therefore, under natural selection, some sort of torture adaptation should emerge as dominant... (Cut me some slack on the timeline issues, and the extent to which this torture is applied...of course if its too severe, no one reproduces)

So yes, you are not going to see a "torture" gene, but over time you might.

Or if you want to be really[/u'] cynical, "some biological factor".

I'm cynical enough to accept that!

I was a little confused about the statement as well...The way I see it...If present environmental conditions are equal, and individual history is factored out...Then the only candidate are genetic dispositions.

Twin studies show that a fair amount of the variation in personality is attributable to genes. In addition, it has been shown that the next largest contributor (40-45% percent I believe) is NON-SHARED environment. Face it, family only matters so much.

I define personality as the differential senisivity to environmental cues across individuals. Initially, this is sort of "soft" wired, and through experience develops into what we call personality. It affects the allocation of attention, or the level of arousal. Eventually, this senisitvity coupled with environemntal exprience comes to color our perception, cognition and our behavior.

Thats one cool monkey.

Actually they are.

 

 

 

Parental environments that even have a threshhold for abusing their child are deficient' date=' whether the child is "highly difficult" or not. Social norms and labels cause parents not to understand their children.

 

 

Here are some alternative explanations that you have not ruled out, and that substantiate my claim:

 

1. Picture this:

 

One child is very "difficult" and "causes" a negative reaction from parents. Indeed, it seems that the child has caused the parental reaction, as a more easy-going child illicits very receptive and warm reactions from the same parent.

 

However, now picture parents #2 who treat their children the same, as a pre-planned arrangement. To be specific, they do not react to the child according to the child him/herself, but they act according to principles that apply to children universally, such as that they are the subject of experiences and behave rationally. Regardless of the behavior of the child, the parent is able to [i']communicate[/i] with him/her.

 

The environment of the two above scenarios are clearly different. Yet, you say that it is the child that illicits a reaction. Clearly, the reaction is dependent on the parents' beliefs.

 

 

 

 

2. a) Regarding labelling, how much do you know about linguistics and the effects of categories in North American culture? These are new perspectives you are not aware of. North American culture is linguitically and socially highly category driven. Things are too often seen in dichotomies. Parents of children will right away label their child as "good" or "bad" and "beautiful" and "not beautiful," in accordance with superficial norms that exist in society. These can easily become self-fullfilling prophecies.

 

2. b) Labels are implicit when someone is kicked out of school or grouped as a delinquent based on their personality. This will have a snowballing effect and make the current personality much more rigid. Go look this up, it pertains to ASP and is even considered a causal pathway to its persistence in adulthood.

 

3. Isolation can be in various ways, such as through socio-economic status, being not taught skills and cared for, improper nutrition, and a very important one, inadequate communication. These all arguably set a habitual delinquent path for kids, and even set their role in society, which can make them very angry inside for the rest of their lives.

 

4. Grandoise self-esteem? Grandiosity comes from insecurity, and insecurity from how people in the social world have treated you in the past.

 

5. a)Parental Motivation. Society can put a label on a family and give it a "status." If this status is that the family is "low-class" in some way, they will not be motivated to treat their child as a worthy person.

 

b) Parents are indoctrinated that "children are bad," or that "for a child to be acceptable, they have to have trait X." Thus, any deviation from the norm will either illicit disappointment, and/or a lack of motivation to spend time and energy on their child.

 

 

 

Integration in psychology has seldom taken place. Experts are usually experts on a certain angle, furthermore we can not rule out the idea that many researchers, and even the whole academic set up of the West on the whole, does not interpret data to its own benefit, and with its own perspective. In fact, this is shown to be true if you've read sociology.

 

It is up to us to make the data complete and fully sensible.

 

I'll keep my eye out for the reference. Essentially, the research showed that good families (as opposed to your contention of "normal" ones) prevent anti-social personality from developing. Kids at high risk in caring families did NOT develop the disorder.

 

 

 

Here's a different explanation: APD is more prevalent in Caucasian culture in comparison with some other cultures due to the power, moral "high-ground", etc socialized to the race via over-arrogant political institutions and ideologies. These associative powers allow the disorder to develop if parents don't care and control for their kids. This trend will be seen for other societies as long as they are indoctrinated to be superior than others.

 

 

 

If you want your claims to work, you will ofcourse need to be able to respond to social explanations of the same data. Above, you also minimize the dynamic complexity of society.

 

Also, see if this makes sense:

 

Genetic studies do not prove the importance of genetics, only that genes are the cause of the disorder in a particular environment. For example, in an environment where bread is withheld, one will develop ALS depending on their genes. ALS is not a genetic disorder, but is environmental, since the bread is withheld. You are clearly misinterpreting the data.

Hold on, Hold on, Are you saying that in particular environments, i.e. ones without bread, genes will determine ALS development?

So which came first Ramin, the genes or the Environment? hahaha...

You trying to ascribe first cause to the envirionment...sounds a little chicken an egg to me.

You don't have to accept them' date=' but there are other perspectives out there. The new science, cogntive science, which arbuably has more research and inference flexibility, claims "situated cognition," that the situation is far more important for cognitive processes (therefore also cognitive disorders) than it has been claimed by psychology.

 

Also, we can't say genetics and environment are always equally important. Take this thought experiment:

 

A society has a very low prevalence of mental disorder. However, this leader takes over and starts torturing its citizens physically and emotionally, as well as withholding healthy foods despite their abundance.

After this, one third of the citizens become mentally ill while two thirds don't. Sure, their genes are "better." But first of all they are better given those particular situations, and how much does it matter anyway when what's triggered the illnesses is a ruthless madman?[/quote']

 

All this situated cognition stuff...Ramin, do you think personality exists?

An example if gene/environment interaction....Oh yea, we call those phenotypes, right?

"Development. How is anything but the caregiver's beliefs involved in developed? Genes become manifest the way the caregiver makes them become manifest."

Its obvious your not a student of development. A portion of development is maturation. The term maturation implies biological change. Language development is a classical example here.

"You have given absolutely no proof for that claim. First of all some level of permanency is implicit, and even explicit, in the definition of temperment. There is no basis for the concept except political and social determinism. Again, it is better explained as "the infant's initial state," implying potential for change as opposed to "its the way s/he is."

Looks like you are defending a bad religion... "

You obviuosly have some other agenda unrealted to SCIENCE. Studies with monkeys have shown that even monkeys have temprament. The experiment then proceeds to expose fussy monkeys to warm mothers (not biological). Those same monkeys, over time move toward the soothable monkey demeanor. HOWEVER, under conditions of stress, the monkey reverts back to its fussy state, indicating THAT, there be some residual "initial state" left. That does not sound permanent, nor fully plastic...Go figure?

In addition, drop the moral and religious comments. We are having a scientific conservation, no?

"Are you expecting me to agree with someone that has absolutely no proof?"

The behaviorist accounts need no proof, they are common knowledge for those within the science. Just read it.

As far as biology constraining behavior...

Can you fly? Breath underwater? Live beyond 200 years old? Can you sense electro-magnetic pulses?

...Oh yea, without technology

"Huntington's is a genetic disease and should not be brought into this topic: the genetic forum is far more appropriate. Non-genetic diseases occur via deficiency in the environment.

You have yet to bring up a case where "genes and environment" mutually cause a disease. There are arguably few of these, such as phenylketonia, but for the majority of DSM oppressions, there is no such thing. Don't forget to argue why genes are not the medium if you want to bring a case forward. Just a reminder that you have yet to give any examples to support your "genes & environment" mutuality theory."

Context is important here. You are making statements, and not defining what context they refer too...

Are we talking about disease in general? Mental disease?

"I don't know. I know that the enviornment can give them dignity, I'm not sure about curing ALL of them, but in many cases it will work. I'm focused on abolishment of causing diseases."

Dignity. That is a moral issue, take it to the philosophy forum.

"By the way, you asked that if they are environmentally determined, then they can be cured. That is non-sensical. The environment can badly damage the biological system to the point of no return, thus causing it but not curing it."

Yea, and biology can also DEFEND against the environment, such as those with sickle cell trait, which is the genetic condition selected for in regions of endemic malaria. They are more resistant to malaria.

"Because you are claiming that it is not based solely on the caregiver's belief. Give an example of how anything else is part of it. "

That is exactly what I am saying. However, what do you mean by "it"? I can't give you an example when I do not know exactly what you are refering too.

"So you're saying that the baby's initial state is temperment, i.e. to certain extents permanent. Such a deterministic claim needs examples and precision, and that is what I am asking from you. "

I never said "permanent", so I don't feel I am being deterministic. I acknowledged that the environment, i.e. caregiver warmth, etc., can play a role in how that temperment develops into the child's personality. AGAIN...its a interaction between biology (temperment) and environment.

"Do you even know what behaviorism is? There's no need to categorize my claims. They are just claims. My claim is that the environment is the cause and detriment to health. "

Yes I do. In general, the theories initially held that the environment completely determines behavior. However, in the late 50's, early 60's, behaviorist psychologists found that certain animals learn somethings faster or slower, no matter what type of contingency was present. In addition, they found that there was just somethings that animals could not learn, because instinct was so intrenched within the organism's behavioral set, they could not be changed. FACE IT...to some degree, biology CONSTRAINS or LIMITS behavior.

I do not disagree that environment can be detrimental, BUT there are some gentically passed on diseases, such as hunington's chorea, that are soley determined by the genes. Biology matters too.

"You mean we can prevent them right. Yes, it can be easily prevented via the environment, and this is clear even from the extreme "behavioural genetic" account."

NO, I said CURE...So if someone has schizo, we can cure them...Maybe with some rewards and small ligthed disks?

morphine is also a scheduled l controlled substance so your statement that it therefore has no acceptable medical use kinda just got blown out the water. It is easy to get caught up in the anti-drug groups and their theories on various drugs and some of the pooh-pars that go with them.

 

You can see the table of contents here

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html

 

Cannabis has been under trial via the government for the past 25 years' date=' one of the recievers of regular monthly canisters of pre-rolled cannabis cigerettes, is Irvin Rosenfeld - a federal marijuana patient !!! and yet still they can not prove nor disprove its benefits with regard to intense pain, I would be interested to know how many years morphine was trialed before it was release at doctors discretion.

 

I dont support its use as a recreational drug and first hand experience has shown me that yes there is lethargy depression and all the other ills that go with it when used as a recreational drug, however I also have first hand experience of its use and effects as a medicinal remedy, I have seen for myself the speed with which cannabis acts compared to conventional extreme pain drugs, only morphine comes close to this speed, (5mgms of morphine didnt remove the pain but three puffs of cannabis did) I have seen for myself the necessary increased dosage in hard man made drugs in order to keep symptoms and pain to a dull ache, whereas cannabis remains as a constant with very little needed.

 

Other than vitamins you can overdose on all man made medicines, you can not overdose on cannabis. Yes there have been cases of people overdosing and having traces of cannabis in their system, however, they also had other more dangerous drugs in their system too. In clinical trials on rats they were unable to produce a single overdose.

 

For decades we have heard from various members of the goverment stating various erronious claims in regards to what smoking Marijuana will do. Do you think the goverment which produces such claims as the following should be looked to as the gospel authoritive word? This is an example of the propaganda, that they put out to continue the smoke screen lie:

 

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

- Federal Bureau of Narcotics Chief Harry J. Anslinger, 1929

 

"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"

Federal Bureau of Narcotics Chief Harry J. Anslinger, 1948

 

"Permanent brain damage is one of the inevitable results of the use of marijuana."

by: Ronald Reagan 1974

 

"Marijuana leads to homosexuality ... and therefore to AIDS."

by: White House Drug Czar Carlton Turner 1986

No doubt, there are medical uses for cannabis. However, for ADHD is not one of them. In addition to your comments about leaders comments...Right now Meth is in the same position. They are attirbuting an increased spread of AIDS on the use of Meth. Face it, Meth lowers inhibition and contributes (note the word) to a decreased likelihood of using a condom. Whether the same is true of cannabis is an emprirical question.

"Try to refute this claim:

How the caregiver responds to the child has nothing to do with the child and is solely based on the caregiver's beliefs."

Why should I have to? The behavior of any organism is MULTIDETERMINED, so beliefs obviously can factor in. How much so, is an empirical question.

"This proves my point: temperment is only the initial state of the infant and the course of it is based on the caregiver's belief-system."

This is incomplete. There are so many factors, where should I begin? Can I not assume the caregiver, especially a NEW caregiver, would nto change their beliefs based on actually having to care for a child? Does not the child's "intial state" or whatever you wanna call it, play a role? Your to unidirectional. This is obviously a bidirectional, even cyclical process.

"How about genes provide the biology while the environment shapes the psychology?"

To determined. Behaviorism revisited.

"You obviously are overinterpreting the data. The fact that many people with identical genes of a schizophrenic don't develop the problem shows that it depends on the environment. You can't say "no matter the environment" in any way."

So if schizo. is environmentally determined, then we can cure them right?

Well, Ramin...since you look up to smart people so much..

Marijuana is a mild hallucinogen, and has some of alcohol’s depressant and disinhibiting properties. User reaction, however, is heavily influenced by expectations and past experience, and many first-time users feel nothing at all.

Effects of smoking are generally felt within a few minutes and peak in 10 to 30 minutes. They include dry mouth and throat, increased heart rate, impaired coordination and balance, delayed reaction time, and diminished short-term memory. Moderate doses tend to induce a sense of well-being and a dreamy state of relaxation that encourages fantasies, renders some users highly suggestible, and distorts perception (making it dangerous to operate machinery, drive a car or boat, or ride a bicycle). Stronger doses prompt more intense and often disturbing reactions including paranoia and hallucinations.

The Impact on the Mind

Marijuana use reduces learning ability. Research has been piling up of late demonstrating clearly that marijuana limits the capacity to absorb and retain information. A 1995 study of college students discovered that the inability of heavy marijuana users to focus, sustain attention, and organize data persists for as long as 24 hours after their last use of the drug. Earlier research, comparing cognitive abilities of adult marijuana users with non-using adults, found that users fall short on memory as well as math and verbal skills. Although it has yet to be proven conclusively that heavy marijuana use can cause irreversible loss of intellectual capacity, animal studies have shown marijuana-induced structural damage to portions of the brain essential to memory and learning.

Marijuana also affects hormones. Regular use can delay the onset of puberty in young men and reduce sperm production. For women, regular use may disrupt normal monthly menstrual cycles and inhibit ovulation. When pregnant women use marijuana, they run the risk of having smaller babies with lower birth weights, who are more likely than other babies to develop health problems. Some studies have also found indications of developmental delays in children exposed to marijuana before birth.

Marijuana as Medicine

Although U.S. law classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance (which means it has no acceptable medical use), a number of patients claim that smoking pot has helped them deal with pain or relieved the symptoms of glaucoma, the loss of appetite that accompanies AIDS, or nausea caused by cancer chemotherapy. There is, however, no solid evidence that smoking marijuana creates any greater benefits than approved medications (including oral THC) now used to treat these patients, relieve their suffering, or mitigate the side effects of their treatment. Anecdotal assertions of beneficial effects have yet to be confirmed by controlled scientific research.

So beyond the uses stated above...Cannabis would not be helpful for ADHD.