I could cut and paste various psych theories too, but I don't see what that would accomplish.
Probably nothing, but I'm talking about Developmental Psychology. I've studied how the brain develops and so on. So when I say Tabula Rasa or Blank Slate and you say it's the most ridiculous theory, it shows how much you actually know about development.
I don't care if you were a parent and I wasn't, both Margaret Mead and Jean Piaget were parents too, hell Sigmund Freud probably had kids. Being a parent doesn't make you an authority on development.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
A significant question in developmental psychology is the relation between innateness and environmental influence in regard to any particular aspect of development. This is often referred to as "nature versus nurture" or nativism versus empiricism. A nativist account of development would argue that the processes in question are innate, that is, they are specified by the organism's genes. An empiricist perspective would argue that those processes are acquired in interaction with the environment. Today developmental psychologists rarely take such extreme positions with regard to most aspects of development; rather they investigate, among many other things, the relationship between innate and environmental influences....
There is a great deal of evidence for components of both the nativist and empiricist position, and this is a hotly debated research topic in developmental psychology.
So even the experts can't really agree it's one or the other
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
A significant question in developmental psychology is the relation between innateness and environmental influence in regard to any particular aspect of development. This is often referred to as "nature versus nurture" or nativism versus empiricism. A nativist account of development would argue that the processes in question are innate, that is, they are specified by the organism's genes. An empiricist perspective would argue that those processes are acquired in interaction with the environment. Today developmental psychologists rarely take such extreme positions with regard to most aspects of development; rather they investigate, among many other things, the relationship between innate and environmental influences....
There is a great deal of evidence for components of both the nativist and empiricist position, and this is a hotly debated research topic in developmental psychology.
So even the experts can't really agree it's one or the other
Let me explain something. "Nature vs. Nurture" both are physical determinents which leaves no free-choice to the individual. The child's "nature" or genetics may determine things like leptin or PPAR-Delta or insulin productions or sensitivities. Wether the child is an endomorph, mesomorph or exomorph. Some intelligence is based on genetics, but most of it is learned. When they talk about "nature" they are talking about such things as autism, Spina Bifida, etc...
You won't find many developmental psychologists arguing for Original Sin or Innate Purity anymore, though I bet you could find one or two if you really tried. The majority, and rightfully so, go with Tabula Rasa. This is to say that Michael Jordan wasn't born a great basketball player, he put in the time and effort to develop his skills.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'd rather my kids imagine things that might be real.
Never!!!!
Reality doesn't need to be imagined.. it's there for everyone to see.
Let the kids see what they want to see, spirits, angels, fairies, etc.... Let them see the world (and other worlds?) through their own, wonderful eyes.....
Reality doesn't need to be imagined.. it's there for everyone to see.
Let the kids see what they want to see, spirits, angels, fairies, etc.... Let them see the world (and other worlds?) through their own, wonderful eyes.....
Yea, but reality is, if left to their own devices kids will not imagine spirits, angels, fairies, etc.. those are ideas that are implanted into their brains. If left to their own devices, children concern themselves with what is real.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yea, but reality is, if left to their own devices kids will not imagine spirits, angels, fairies, etc.. those are ideas that are implanted into their brains. If left to their own devices, children concern themselves with what is real.
Where did they come from? Didn't someone have to dream up the first imagined fairy pretty much from scratch?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Let me explain something. "Nature vs. Nurture" both are physical determinents which leaves no free-choice to the individual. The child's "nature" or genetics may determine things like leptin or PPAR-Delta or insulin productions or sensitivities. Wether the child is an endomorph, mesomorph or exomorph. Some intelligence is based on genetics, but most of it is learned. When they talk about "nature" they are talking about such things as autism, Spina Bifida, etc...
You won't find many developmental psychologists arguing for Original Sin or Innate Purity anymore, though I bet you could find one or two if you really tried. The majority, and rightfully so, go with Tabula Rasa. This is to say that Michael Jordan wasn't born a great basketball player, he put in the time and effort to develop his skills.
and without some sort of genetic foundation all the hard work wouldn't have amounted to what it did.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Where did they come from? Didn't someone have to dream up the first imagined fairy pretty much from scratch?
Probably, just like someone dreamed up Santa Clause
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
and without some sort of genetic foundation all the hard work wouldn't have amounted to what it did.
Certainly if Michael Jordon wasn't a mesomorph he would have had more difficulty acheiving what he did, but you see more exomorphs in basketball anyway. Endomorphs don't have much of a chance, that's why we work technical jobs
Point is Jordon could have been a football player, a golfer, baseball player, he could have been anything, but if you hand him a golf club, he sucks. He practiced basketball and became good at it. It's not an innate talent.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Certainly if Michael Jordon wasn't a mesomorph he would have had more difficulty acheiving what he did, but you see more exomorphs in basketball anyway. Endomorphs don't have much of a chance, that's why we work technical jobs
Point is Jordon could have been a football player, a golfer, baseball player, he could have been anything, but if you hand him a golf club, he sucks. He practiced basketball and became good at it. It's not an innate talent.
It is through hard work that he was able to develop his innate talent. At some point, genetics play into athletic ability and genetics plays in to intelligence. I'm not saying that hard work can't make up for what natural ability fails to provide but at some point you need more than hard work. Hard work is great and will only accentuate good natural ability. Which goes back to development. There is some natural component to everything but there is also an interplay with environement etc... Oh, and Jordan isn't actually that bad at golf.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
It is through hard work that he was able to develop his innate talent. At some point, genetics play into athletic ability and genetics plays in to intelligence. I'm not saying that hard work can't make up for what natural ability fails to provide but at some point you need more than hard work. Hard work is great and will only accentuate good natural ability. Which goes back to development. There is some natural component to everything but there is also an interplay with environement etc... Oh, and Jordan isn't actually that bad at golf.
Jordan is horrible at baseball.
Anyway, practicing and becoming good at something does not equate to an innate talent. Some how I think you are just talking out yer ass on this one.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Anyway, practicing and becoming good at something does not equate to an innate talent. Some how I think you are just talking out yer ass on this one.
What you're saying is silly. Jordan practiced and became arguably the best basketball player in the world. He may have been just as good at baseball if he put the time and effort into it. He is an anamoly. Everyone doesn't have the same clean slate from birth to achieve similar results. It's not always just practice that makes you good at something. Certain people just don't have the coordination or natural ability to excel at sports, no matter how much they practice.
Genetics definitely plays a role. How can you argue otherwise?
What you're saying is silly. Jordan practiced and became arguably the best basketball player in the world. He may have been just as good at baseball if he put the time and effort into it. He is an anamoly. Everyone doesn't have the same clean slate from birth to achieve similar results. It's not always just practice that makes you good at something. Certain people just don't have the coordination or natural ability to excel at sports, no matter how much they practice.
Genetics definitely plays a role. How can you argue otherwise?
I'm not arguing otherwise. Apparently some people can't read very well either.
Yea, if a person has problems with sensorimotor functions because they suffered brain damage or has some genetic anomoly, then sure, they won't be very good at basketball, but in general, talent is acheived through practice. People can yap their trap all they want, but it doesn't change the facts.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Anyway, practicing and becoming good at something does not equate to an innate talent. Some how I think you are just talking out yer ass on this one.
No but to get to that level it does take natural ability and innate talent. I played college tennis and I've worked with some olympic / professional caliber athletes in other sports. And I can tell you that at some point you have to the genetics to get to the next level. I couldn't get to the higher ranks of college tennis and I was no threat to become a professional, not b/c I lacked hard work or good coaching but at some point natural ability (genetics) definitely plays a roll.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
I'm not arguing otherwise. Apparently some people can't read very well either.
Yea, if a person has problems with sensorimotor functions because they suffered brain damage or has some genetic anomoly, then sure, they won't be very good at basketball, but in general, talent is acheived through practice. People can yap their trap all they want, but it doesn't change the facts.
Yes talent is achieved through practice...but how come if you take 100 people and have them practice how come they dont' all end up at the same level...even if they practice the same way. I've taught beginning classes and some people pick up sports very quickly and others can practice 8 hours a day and they will never be good. Like most things, it's a combination of factors and you cant just isolate one thing and say it's the sole reason.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Yes talent is achieved through practice...but how come if you take 100 people and have them practice how come they dont' all end up at the same level...even if they practice the same way. I've taught beginning classes and some people pick up sports very quickly and others can practice 8 hours a day and they will never be good. Like most things, it's a combination of factors and you cant just isolate one thing and say it's the sole reason.
Experience or "Nurture" is a wide range of things, it's difficult to quantify exactly what experiences will result in a fast learning athlete. My guess is it has to do with coordination and stuff. If a child played with a lot of balls and sports like stuff as an infant, they should find it easier than a child that was given more "educational" toys.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm not arguing otherwise. Apparently some people can't read very well either.
Yea, if a person has problems with sensorimotor functions because they suffered brain damage or has some genetic anomoly, then sure, they won't be very good at basketball, but in general, talent is acheived through practice. People can yap their trap all they want, but it doesn't change the facts.
I read just fine, thank you. And yes, you are arguing otherwise. You're saying that Jordan doesn't have any natural ability or genetic code that plays a role in his greatness at basketball. It was all achieved through practice? Come on.
Not everyone has the "natural" ability to be good at sports. It won't matter how much you practice, you will never achieve greatness. I'm not talking about people with brain damage. Just people that are simply not coordinated.
Experience or "Nurture" is a wide range of things, it's difficult to quantify exactly what experiences will result in a fast learning athlete. My guess is it has to do with coordination and stuff. If a child played with a lot of balls and sports like stuff as an infant, they should find it easier than a child that was given more "educational" toys.
then the question becomes do they play with balls, sticks etc... b/c they were forced to or b/c they gravitated to them rather than more educational toys. Agassi's dad hung tennis balls over every kids crib and the only child that took notice of it and always followed the ball, even at an early age was andre. I'm not denying environment plays a roll in everything, but there is more to it than just that.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Experience or "Nurture" is a wide range of things, it's difficult to quantify exactly what experiences will result in a fast learning athlete. My guess is it has to do with coordination and stuff. If a child played with a lot of balls and sports like stuff as an infant, they should find it easier than a child that was given more "educational" toys.
So you're suggesting that coordination is simply a learned skill and not in any way natural?
I read just fine, thank you. And yes, you are arguing otherwise. You're saying that Jordan doesn't have any natural ability or genetic code that plays a role in his greatness at basketball. It was all achieved through practice? Come on.
Not everyone has the "natural" ability to be good at sports. It won't matter how much you practice, you will never achieve greatness. I'm not talking about people with brain damage. Just people that are simply not coordinated.
Coordination is a function of the brain.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So you're suggesting that coordination is simply a learned skill and not in any way natural?
No, I'm saying that it is both a learned skill and dependent on certain brain regions.
Can you at least try to understand what I'm saying?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
No, I'm saying that it is both a learned skill and dependent on certain brain regions.
Can you at least try to understand what I'm saying?
Could you be any more condescending? It's not my inability to read or understand your brilliance, I simply disagree with some of the things that you are saying.
Could you be any more condescending? It's not my inability to read or understand your brilliance, I simply disagree with some of the things that you are saying.
You've clearly demonstrated that you do not understand. Pick up a Developmental Psychology textbook and maybe it will clarify my point.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Actually, my wife works in the developmental psychology field, but thank you for the suggestion to read a textbook.
Put her on.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I just called her and summarized the thread, and she said you're crazy (her words). She said everyone excels at different areas of development (math, speech, language, artistic ability) based on various factors, including genetics.
She said you're obviously a Nature vs Nurture person, and that anyone with common senese would tell you that it's a combination of both.
I just called her and summarized the thread, and she said you're crazy (her words). She said everyone excels at different areas of development (math, speech, language, artistic ability) based on various factors, including genetics.
She said you're obviously a Nature vs Nurture person, and that anyone with common senese would tell you that it's a combination of both.
Which is exactly what I said. So you truly didn't understand what I was saying.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Look, I've read about developmental psychology, and development is definitely a combination of nature and nurture. The point I am making is that Michael Jordan did not become a great basketball player by genetics alone, and in-fact his genetics do not make him a good baseball player. So unless they identify a basketball gene, I'm willing to bet practice and training are responsible for his skills.
Genetics are responsible for the basic physique, but you will find only 3 main body types, and exercise and training account for the actual fitness and abilities of an individual. The importance of proper stimulation during infancy is irrefutable, I don't care if you are a developmental psychologist, this is something that you should simply know, if you are. It's my belief that a lot of intelligence is related to adequate stimulation during infant synaptogenesis and onward throughout life.
I may be right handed, but if I use my left hand enough, I can become ambidextrous, that's a fact. It's like saying "White men can't jump" because black men have better genes. It's absolute rubbish, white men can jump and are now playing basketball with the blacks.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Look, I've read about developmental psychology, and development is definitely a combination of nature and nurture. The point I am making is that Michael Jordan did not become a great basketball player by genetics alone, and in-fact his genetics do not make him a good baseball player. So unless they identify a basketball gene, I'm willing to bet practice and training are responsible for his skills.
Genetics are responsible for the basic physique, but you will find only 3 main body types, and exercise and training account for the actual fitness and abilities of an individual. The importance of proper stimulation during infancy is irrefutable, I don't care if you are a developmental psychologist, this is something that you should simply know, if you are. It's my belief that a lot of intelligence is related to adequate stimulation during infant synaptogenesis and onward throughout life.
I may be right handed, but if I use my left hand enough, I can become ambidextrous, that's a fact. It's like saying "White men can't jump" because black men have better genes. It's absolute rubbish, white men can jump and are now playing basketball with the blacks.
Comments
Probably nothing, but I'm talking about Developmental Psychology. I've studied how the brain develops and so on. So when I say Tabula Rasa or Blank Slate and you say it's the most ridiculous theory, it shows how much you actually know about development.
I don't care if you were a parent and I wasn't, both Margaret Mead and Jean Piaget were parents too, hell Sigmund Freud probably had kids. Being a parent doesn't make you an authority on development.
Apparently the brain isn't as cut and dried as you make it out to be either...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology
A significant question in developmental psychology is the relation between innateness and environmental influence in regard to any particular aspect of development. This is often referred to as "nature versus nurture" or nativism versus empiricism. A nativist account of development would argue that the processes in question are innate, that is, they are specified by the organism's genes. An empiricist perspective would argue that those processes are acquired in interaction with the environment. Today developmental psychologists rarely take such extreme positions with regard to most aspects of development; rather they investigate, among many other things, the relationship between innate and environmental influences....
There is a great deal of evidence for components of both the nativist and empiricist position, and this is a hotly debated research topic in developmental psychology.
So even the experts can't really agree it's one or the other
Let me explain something. "Nature vs. Nurture" both are physical determinents which leaves no free-choice to the individual. The child's "nature" or genetics may determine things like leptin or PPAR-Delta or insulin productions or sensitivities. Wether the child is an endomorph, mesomorph or exomorph. Some intelligence is based on genetics, but most of it is learned. When they talk about "nature" they are talking about such things as autism, Spina Bifida, etc...
You won't find many developmental psychologists arguing for Original Sin or Innate Purity anymore, though I bet you could find one or two if you really tried. The majority, and rightfully so, go with Tabula Rasa. This is to say that Michael Jordan wasn't born a great basketball player, he put in the time and effort to develop his skills.
Never!!!!
Reality doesn't need to be imagined.. it's there for everyone to see.
Let the kids see what they want to see, spirits, angels, fairies, etc.... Let them see the world (and other worlds?) through their own, wonderful eyes.....
Yea, but reality is, if left to their own devices kids will not imagine spirits, angels, fairies, etc.. those are ideas that are implanted into their brains. If left to their own devices, children concern themselves with what is real.
and without some sort of genetic foundation all the hard work wouldn't have amounted to what it did.
Probably, just like someone dreamed up Santa Clause
Certainly if Michael Jordon wasn't a mesomorph he would have had more difficulty acheiving what he did, but you see more exomorphs in basketball anyway. Endomorphs don't have much of a chance, that's why we work technical jobs
Point is Jordon could have been a football player, a golfer, baseball player, he could have been anything, but if you hand him a golf club, he sucks. He practiced basketball and became good at it. It's not an innate talent.
It is through hard work that he was able to develop his innate talent. At some point, genetics play into athletic ability and genetics plays in to intelligence. I'm not saying that hard work can't make up for what natural ability fails to provide but at some point you need more than hard work. Hard work is great and will only accentuate good natural ability. Which goes back to development. There is some natural component to everything but there is also an interplay with environement etc... Oh, and Jordan isn't actually that bad at golf.
Jordan is horrible at baseball.
Anyway, practicing and becoming good at something does not equate to an innate talent. Some how I think you are just talking out yer ass on this one.
What you're saying is silly. Jordan practiced and became arguably the best basketball player in the world. He may have been just as good at baseball if he put the time and effort into it. He is an anamoly. Everyone doesn't have the same clean slate from birth to achieve similar results. It's not always just practice that makes you good at something. Certain people just don't have the coordination or natural ability to excel at sports, no matter how much they practice.
Genetics definitely plays a role. How can you argue otherwise?
I'm not arguing otherwise. Apparently some people can't read very well either.
Yea, if a person has problems with sensorimotor functions because they suffered brain damage or has some genetic anomoly, then sure, they won't be very good at basketball, but in general, talent is acheived through practice. People can yap their trap all they want, but it doesn't change the facts.
No but to get to that level it does take natural ability and innate talent. I played college tennis and I've worked with some olympic / professional caliber athletes in other sports. And I can tell you that at some point you have to the genetics to get to the next level. I couldn't get to the higher ranks of college tennis and I was no threat to become a professional, not b/c I lacked hard work or good coaching but at some point natural ability (genetics) definitely plays a roll.
Yes talent is achieved through practice...but how come if you take 100 people and have them practice how come they dont' all end up at the same level...even if they practice the same way. I've taught beginning classes and some people pick up sports very quickly and others can practice 8 hours a day and they will never be good. Like most things, it's a combination of factors and you cant just isolate one thing and say it's the sole reason.
Experience or "Nurture" is a wide range of things, it's difficult to quantify exactly what experiences will result in a fast learning athlete. My guess is it has to do with coordination and stuff. If a child played with a lot of balls and sports like stuff as an infant, they should find it easier than a child that was given more "educational" toys.
we can't say that...someone might get offended and feel hurt.
I read just fine, thank you. And yes, you are arguing otherwise. You're saying that Jordan doesn't have any natural ability or genetic code that plays a role in his greatness at basketball. It was all achieved through practice? Come on.
Not everyone has the "natural" ability to be good at sports. It won't matter how much you practice, you will never achieve greatness. I'm not talking about people with brain damage. Just people that are simply not coordinated.
then the question becomes do they play with balls, sticks etc... b/c they were forced to or b/c they gravitated to them rather than more educational toys. Agassi's dad hung tennis balls over every kids crib and the only child that took notice of it and always followed the ball, even at an early age was andre. I'm not denying environment plays a roll in everything, but there is more to it than just that.
So you're suggesting that coordination is simply a learned skill and not in any way natural?
Coordination is a function of the brain.
No, I'm saying that it is both a learned skill and dependent on certain brain regions.
Can you at least try to understand what I'm saying?
That's becoming very evident.
You've clearly demonstrated that you do not understand. Pick up a Developmental Psychology textbook and maybe it will clarify my point.
:rolleyes:
Actually, my wife works in the developmental psychology field, but thank you for the suggestion to read a textbook.
Put her on.
I just called her and summarized the thread, and she said you're crazy (her words). She said everyone excels at different areas of development (math, speech, language, artistic ability) based on various factors, including genetics.
She said you're obviously a Nature vs Nurture person, and that anyone with common senese would tell you that it's a combination of both.
Which is exactly what I said. So you truly didn't understand what I was saying.
Look, I've read about developmental psychology, and development is definitely a combination of nature and nurture. The point I am making is that Michael Jordan did not become a great basketball player by genetics alone, and in-fact his genetics do not make him a good baseball player. So unless they identify a basketball gene, I'm willing to bet practice and training are responsible for his skills.
Genetics are responsible for the basic physique, but you will find only 3 main body types, and exercise and training account for the actual fitness and abilities of an individual. The importance of proper stimulation during infancy is irrefutable, I don't care if you are a developmental psychologist, this is something that you should simply know, if you are. It's my belief that a lot of intelligence is related to adequate stimulation during infant synaptogenesis and onward throughout life.
I may be right handed, but if I use my left hand enough, I can become ambidextrous, that's a fact. It's like saying "White men can't jump" because black men have better genes. It's absolute rubbish, white men can jump and are now playing basketball with the blacks.
Well put! The force is strong in you! :cool: