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.
Holy backpedaller Batman! That is not at all what you were saying. I could literally copy and paste almost this entire thread to prove you were saying otherwise, but I am at work and have wasted enough time on this ridiculousness.
You've resorted to childish tactics saying people are talking out their asses and can't read, and now you're agreeing with Chopitdown and I that it is considered to be a combination of both genetics/natural ability and lots of practice. That is what we were saying all along, but you claimed otherwise. I'm glad you finally agree with me. Genetics plays a role.
Geez man, remind me to NEVER debate anything with you again.
The force? Being an accumulation of knowledge through study? Yea
I owe much credit to David R. Schaffer's "Developmental Psychology 5th Edition" and the email dialogue I've shared with him since reading his book.
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
Holy backpedaller Batman! That is not at all what you were saying. I could literally copy and paste almost this entire thread to prove you were saying otherwise, but I am at work and have wasted enough time on this ridiculousness.
You said several times that Jordan's basketball ability is attributed to practice, not an innate talent.
You've resorted to childish tactics saying people are talking out their asses and can't read, and now you're agreeing with Chopitdown and I that it is considered to be a combination of both genetics/natural ability and lots of practice. That is what we were saying all along, but you claimed otherwise, that it was soley attributed to practice and hard work because everyone starts out with a clean slate at birth. I'm glad you finally agree with me. Genetics plays a role.
Geez man, remind me to NEVER debate anything with you again.
That's because you misinterpret my statements and the implications of Nature and Nurture. The effect of nature and/or nurture on a person's abilities aren't always identical, in-fact many times the influence of nature is relatively slim, such as the case with Michael Jordan's basketball skills. This thread originally was discussing brain development, which is strongly dependent on nurture. I don't see how fairies, demons and God having anything to do with nature, they are ideas implanted in a child's brain through nurture.
Your wife should agree that their is no innate talent like an ability to play basketball well. That's exactly what I'm referring to. I'm certainly not referring to the neuron/synapse mass of Wernicke's area when I'm referring to talent, because a large brain region does not equate to talent. Infant synaptogenesis and neurogenesis are dependent on external stimuli for development. So even if a person does have a large Wernicke's area, they were most likely subjected to much musical stimuli during the infant brain growth spurt, which equates to nurture in the nature and/or nurture scheme.
I just don't think you have the understanding required to perceive what I'm saying. I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are thinking in some kind of extremes and expect that the entire capabilities of the brain are dependent solely on genetics, which just simply is not the case.
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
That's because you misinterpret my statements and the implications of Nature and Nurture.
No, I don't. You've backpedalled.
Your wife should agree that their is no innate talent like an ability to play basketball well.
I think it is you that may lack the ability to understand what I'm saying. Obviously there is no basketball gene. What I've said is that Jordan did not become the superior athlete that he is through practice alone, which you debated. Jordan's genetics and the wiring of his brain contributed in some part (not solely) to his talent.
My wife used an example of how she could never be a singer or a professional athlete. No matter how much she practiced, she would not achieve greatness in those areas. Everyone doesn't have the same potential to achieve the same results. Part of it is genetics. When Chopitdown asked why you could have 100 people spend the same amount of time practicing something, but get very different results, you suggested that it's a combination of "coordination and stuff." That maybe some of the people played with balls and some played with educational toys as kids. Pure rubbish. You could expose different people to the exact same thing from an early age and they would NOT be at the same talent level. Some of it is genetics.
I just don't think you have the understanding required to perceive what I'm saying. I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are thinking in some kind of extremes and expect that the entire capabilities of the brain are dependent solely on genetics, which just simply is not the case.
You are wrong. I never suggested that the entire capabilities of the brain are dependent soley on genetics. But the capabilities are in part related to genetics. Again, perhaps it is you that is unable to understand what I'm saying.
I am signing off now, but good luck with the rest of the thread.
I'm gogin to foolsihly buy in at this point and comment on teh role of genetics and teh concept of a "skill " gene.
While it is not likely that there is a "basketball" gene, there has been some interesting reseach done on "perfect pitch", which strongly suggests that genetic inheritance and developmental expoisure to music are essential for the development of this particular quantifiable skill. There is a neat web-site detailing this where you can measure your performance in this area. I didn't bother, cos I know I'm crap.
Genes only get translated to protiens. What happens beyond that is still largely a mystery so too many comments about what they do and don't do are pretty premature. There are a lot of "twin studies" going on around the world to control for gene influence, which are producing some very interesting results.
I think it is you that may lack the ability to understand what I'm saying. Obviously there is no basketball gene. What I've said is that Jordan did not become the superior athlete that he is through practice alone, which you debated. Jordan's genetics and the wiring of his brain contributed in some part (not solely) to his talent.
My wife used an example of how she could never be a singer or a professional athlete. No matter how much she practiced, she would not achieve greatness in those areas. Everyone doesn't have the same potential to achieve the same results. Part of it is genetics. When Chopitdown asked why you could have 100 people spend the same amount of time practicing something, but get very different results, you suggested that it's a combination of "coordination and stuff." That maybe some of the people played with balls and some played with educational toys as kids. Pure rubbish. You could expose different people to the exact same thing from an early age and they would NOT be at the same talent level. Some of it is genetics.
You are wrong. I never suggested that the entire capabilities of the brain are dependent soley on genetics. But the capabilities are in part related to genetics. Again, perhaps it is you that is unable to understand what I'm saying.
I am signing off now, but good luck with the rest of the thread.
I never said genetics have nothing do with it, that would be absolutely absurd. I simply said that the majority of it is not genetics.
Re: Singing, I sucked a lot more at singing before I started practicing. Unless there is something wrong with her vocal system then she should be capable of learning to sing, exercising her diaphram and vocal chords to produce a professional sound.
You seem to have become quite upset over this discussion and maybe that's why you had trouble understanding what I was saying. I certainly did not backpeddal, this thread began discussing things about synaptogenesis and only became an issue of talent by some obscure interpretation of what I was saying. So, it's not that I was backpeddaling, just that we are not discussing something completely different. What makes a basketball player? Height? Some of the best players are just over 5' tall. Skills? Obtained through coordination and physical training.
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 gogin to foolsihly buy in at this point and comment on teh role of genetics and teh concept of a "skill " gene.
While it is not likely that there is a "basketball" gene, there has been some interesting reseach done on "perfect pitch", which strongly suggests that genetic inheritance and developmental expoisure to music are essential for the development of this particular quantifiable skill. There is a neat web-site detailing this where you can measure your performance in this area. I didn't bother, cos I know I'm crap.
Genes only get translated to protiens. What happens beyond that is still largely a mystery so too many comments about what they do and don't do are pretty premature. There are a lot of "twin studies" going on around the world to control for gene influence, which are producing some very interesting results.
I won't discredit all of those studies, but I'd be skeptical of the method used to determine the results. It's extremely difficult to determine what effect a gene has on a grown adult.
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 won't discredit all of those studies, but I'd be skeptical of the method used to determine the results. It's extremely difficult to determine what effect a gene has on a grown adult.
I'll think you find that at least the ones done through QIMR in Brisbane were pretty careful with their methodology. Twin studies are done on identical twins, so you are looking solely at differences produces by nurture, as the nature is identical. I am not right up on what they have found, but I know they have been following a lot of twins for 20yr or so, so you might be interested to check it out.
I'll think you find that at least the ones done through QIMR in Brisbane were pretty careful with their methodology. Twin studies are done on identical twins, so you are looking solely at differences produces by nurture, as the nature is identical. I am not right up on what they have found, but I know they have been following a lot of twins for 20yr or so, so you might be interested to check it out.
I'm familiar with dizygous twin studies as it's the primary method of determining the effect of genetics. But even in Bailey & Pillard's study of sexual preference in dizygous twins there was only a 50% concordance, which is inconclusive to me, yet they assert that it implies some genetic determination of sexual preference. I don't know, I suppose it could, but shouldn't it be 100%? Or are 50% in the closet about their sexuality? Or does environment affect preference in some other way?
See what I mean, like some will draw the conclusion that Bailey & Pillard proved genetics affect sexuality, some will conclude the opposite, I've historically gone with Schaffer's interpetation that it implies genetics, but I'm still thinking it's somewhat inconclusive.
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 familiar with dizygous twin studies as it's the primary method of determining the effect of genetics. But even in Bailey & Pillard's study of sexual preference in dizygous twins there was only a 50% concordance, which is inconclusive to me, yet they assert that it implies some genetic determination of sexual preference. I don't know, I suppose it could, but shouldn't it be 100%? Or are 50% in the closet about their sexuality? Or does environment affect preference in some other way?
See what I mean, like some will draw the conclusion that Bailey & Pillard proved genetics affect sexuality, some will conclude the opposite, I've historically gone with Schaffer's interpetation that it implies genetics, but I'm still thinking it's somewhat inconclusive.
See, I think the problem there is in the conclusion. A 50% concordance for something that only has an either/or outcome suggests to me taht gentics plays no role, and that it is entirly developmental. What do you mean by "dizygous" ? Don't you mean monozygous, (one zygote) ?
So their imaginations could be about faries and leprechauns or it could be about cosmology or nature. I'd rather my kids imagine things that might be real.
I don't think that really quantifies imagination. When I think about imagination it's a result of neurocomputation based on collected information. When I think leprechaun, I have a clear picture of a traditional leprechaun, he isn't wearing pink with a tutu and dancing to rap music. That would be imagination at work, but no I think of a short irish guy with a beard and a pipe, wearing greed, with little elf shoes. Something I've seen somewhere else before.
Why stifle a kids imagination at all? If you are so big on 'nurture' then why would that even be an option for you? Did you even look into the studies concerning imagination & memory? Imagine things that MIGHT be real, eh? That's a funny statement.
You don't think what quanitfies imagination? Your leprechaun can wear a pink tutu if that is to your liking. Again, the imagination of others can inspire your imagination, ie a leprechaun wearing a tutu. You see, Ahnimus, without imagination & creativity, you automatically lack in 'life skills'. It's the creative folks that excel in science & mathematics. They come up with new theories & ideas opposed to regurgitating others ideas. The one's that lack creativity are simply 'grunt' workers.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
See, I think the problem there is in the conclusion. A 50% concordance for something that only has an either/or outcome suggests to me taht gentics plays no role, and that it is entirly developmental. What do you mean by "dizygous" ? Don't you mean monozygous, (one zygote) ?
That's what I meant, sorry, I was dealing with something else, your right, monozygous. Identical twins.
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
Why stifle a kids imagination at all? If you are so big on 'nurture' then why would that even be an option for you? Did you even look into the studies concerning imagination & memory? Imagine things that MIGHT be real, eh? That's a funny statement.
You don't think what quanitfies imagination? Your leprechaun can wear a pink tutu if that is to your liking. Again, the imagination of others can inspire your imagination, ie a leprechaun wearing a tutu. You see, Ahnimus, without imagination & creativity, you automatically lack in 'life skills'. It's the creative folks that excel in science & mathematics. They come up with new theories & ideas opposed to regurgitating others ideas. The one's that lack creativity are simply 'grunt' workers.
It's not stifling their imagination. It's simply aligning their perspective of reality, with reality. They are still going to have imagination from looking through a telescope up at the stars. The most fascinating things, the greatest influences on "spirituality" or imagination are natural phenomena like the night sky.
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
Children are not born with a set of talents, a personality or anything like that. They are a blank slate and they become whatever you subject them to.
obviously you know nothing of children
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
"Obviously you know nothing about anything." nah nah nah "I'm not listening to you." "blah blah blah"
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
"Obviously you know nothing about anything." nah nah nah "I'm not listening to you." "blah blah blah"
Surely ahnimus , you know that teh Piaget's developed their devlopmental model by observing their children alone, and a sample of one has zero statistical power. Their observations formed a hypothesis, which they never tested. That is not science !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Obviously you know nothing about anything." nah nah nah "I'm not listening to you." "blah blah blah"
i didn't mean it as 'nah nah nah, i'm not listening to you'
but as abook already said, let's compare how you handle the conflicting views of others....
you are a smart guy, you act like you have to try and prove that, maybe it's just the way you interact w/ ppl...you are a smart guy, ppl know that, but that doesn't mean you aren't wrong sometimes, everyone is wrong at times, that's just a fact...just b/c anyone feels it or has a certain perception, no matter how true it may seem to them, that doesn't make it true
you don't have kids, you are going by what others said, if you were a parent you would know how individual a child is, not just a 'blank slate'...in a way they can be, they can be warped and 'molded' and 'trained'...but they also have an inate characteristic of individuality...it's up to those raising them which path they lead...personally, i think beautiful flowers should be cared for and nurtured and helped to grow, not mold and construct
but, that's just my 2 cents
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i didn't mean it as 'nah nah nah, i'm not listening to you'
but as abook already said, let's compare how you handle the conflicting views of others....
you are a smart guy, you act like you have to try and prove that, maybe it's just the way you interact w/ ppl...you are a smart guy, ppl know that, but that doesn't mean you aren't wrong sometimes, everyone is wrong at times, that's just a fact...just b/c anyone feels it or has a certain perception, no matter how true it may seem to them, that doesn't make it true
you don't have kids, you are going by what others said, if you were a parent you would know how individual a child is, not just a 'blank slate'...in a way they can be, they can be warped and 'molded' and 'trained'...but they also have an inate characteristic of individuality...it's up to those raising them which path they lead...personally, i think beautiful flowers should be cared for and nurtured and helped to grow, not mold and construct
but, that's just my 2 cents
A blank slate with a predetermined future. Imagine that!
how individual a child is, not just a 'blank slate'...in a way they can be, they can be warped and 'molded' and 'trained'...but they also have an inate characteristic of individuality...it's up to those raising them which path they lead...personally, i think beautiful flowers should be cared for and nurtured and helped to grow, not mold and construct
who's up for donning a green coat and red wig and dancing a little bit far away from the cliffs of moher tonight?
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
It's not stifling their imagination. It's simply aligning their perspective of reality, with reality. They are still going to have imagination from looking through a telescope up at the stars. The most fascinating things, the greatest influences on "spirituality" or imagination are natural phenomena like the night sky.
I agree that looking in a telescope is great fun, but if you have kids, do not push your ideas of imagination on them. Otherwise you are stifling their creativity & it is bound to back-fire. When I was a teenager, I listened to music that my parents despised. Luckily, they allowed me to have my own tastes and did not ban my music. My dad was a republican, yet he encouraged me to research topics & develop my own beliefs (we did have great debates, which I miss). He would have been disappointed if was like a robot that just followed his views blindly like a sheep. He taught me critical thinking skills and allowed me to grow into the person I am today. When you have kids, don't think of them as a blank slate for the molding, nurture them and show them how to develop their own ideas and views.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I knew you were drastically misinterpreting me to the point of absurdity. Maybe, instead of trying to find fault in what I'm saying, try to understand it first.
A human being begins as a blank slate and begins to learn in the prenatal environment. They develop a personality through behavior modelling and so on. I'm not denying that they do develop personalities and it happes quickly. All of this stuff happens really fast.
I realize that it's beyond my control to make decisions or perceive for my child. That's not what I'm talking about, nor do I recall using the word control. But it is within my control to modify the environment my children grow up in. For example, I don't watch television, so they probably won't have any idea what Blues Clues is until they get into school. They will have toys for bolstering coordination and thought patterns. I'll constantly switch up their toys so they have new more challenging things to work with. I'm not talking about taking a blank child and uploading my software, that is totally ridiculous. Hence why I used the word influence.
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
Do leprechauns exist? If not, how can anyone see them?
yeah, they exist, on a Lucky Charms box. if ANYONE tells me they've seen a leprechaun, i'll be the first one to offer to drive them to the pot of gold that's at the mental institution.
I died. I died and you just stood there. I died and you watched. I died and you walked by and said no. I'm dead.
yeah, they exist, on a Lucky Charms box. if ANYONE tells me they've seen a leprechaun, i'll be the first one to offer to drive them to the pot of gold that's at the mental institution.
When I was a little kid, I spent hours searching for a 4 leaf clover. Least my parents could do is tell me just how rare they are. I wasted many hours of life looking for a damn 4 leaf clover.
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
When I was a little kid, I spent hours searching for a 4 leaf clover. Least my parents could do is tell me just how rare they are. I wasted many hours of life looking for a damn 4 leaf clover.
Man, four leaf clovers seemed to jump right in my lap as a kid
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Man, four leaf clovers seemed to jump right in my lap as a kid
Maybe you are Irish? Short? Have a certain affinity to green?
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
Comments
Holy backpedaller Batman! That is not at all what you were saying. I could literally copy and paste almost this entire thread to prove you were saying otherwise, but I am at work and have wasted enough time on this ridiculousness.
You've resorted to childish tactics saying people are talking out their asses and can't read, and now you're agreeing with Chopitdown and I that it is considered to be a combination of both genetics/natural ability and lots of practice. That is what we were saying all along, but you claimed otherwise. I'm glad you finally agree with me. Genetics plays a role.
Geez man, remind me to NEVER debate anything with you again.
The force? Being an accumulation of knowledge through study? Yea
I owe much credit to David R. Schaffer's "Developmental Psychology 5th Edition" and the email dialogue I've shared with him since reading his book.
Congratulations on reading a book. When you achieve a doctorate in the field, my wife will join the debate with you.
That's because you misinterpret my statements and the implications of Nature and Nurture. The effect of nature and/or nurture on a person's abilities aren't always identical, in-fact many times the influence of nature is relatively slim, such as the case with Michael Jordan's basketball skills. This thread originally was discussing brain development, which is strongly dependent on nurture. I don't see how fairies, demons and God having anything to do with nature, they are ideas implanted in a child's brain through nurture.
Your wife should agree that their is no innate talent like an ability to play basketball well. That's exactly what I'm referring to. I'm certainly not referring to the neuron/synapse mass of Wernicke's area when I'm referring to talent, because a large brain region does not equate to talent. Infant synaptogenesis and neurogenesis are dependent on external stimuli for development. So even if a person does have a large Wernicke's area, they were most likely subjected to much musical stimuli during the infant brain growth spurt, which equates to nurture in the nature and/or nurture scheme.
I just don't think you have the understanding required to perceive what I'm saying. I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are thinking in some kind of extremes and expect that the entire capabilities of the brain are dependent solely on genetics, which just simply is not the case.
I think it is you that may lack the ability to understand what I'm saying. Obviously there is no basketball gene. What I've said is that Jordan did not become the superior athlete that he is through practice alone, which you debated. Jordan's genetics and the wiring of his brain contributed in some part (not solely) to his talent.
My wife used an example of how she could never be a singer or a professional athlete. No matter how much she practiced, she would not achieve greatness in those areas. Everyone doesn't have the same potential to achieve the same results. Part of it is genetics. When Chopitdown asked why you could have 100 people spend the same amount of time practicing something, but get very different results, you suggested that it's a combination of "coordination and stuff." That maybe some of the people played with balls and some played with educational toys as kids. Pure rubbish. You could expose different people to the exact same thing from an early age and they would NOT be at the same talent level. Some of it is genetics.
You are wrong. I never suggested that the entire capabilities of the brain are dependent soley on genetics. But the capabilities are in part related to genetics. Again, perhaps it is you that is unable to understand what I'm saying.
I am signing off now, but good luck with the rest of the thread.
While it is not likely that there is a "basketball" gene, there has been some interesting reseach done on "perfect pitch", which strongly suggests that genetic inheritance and developmental expoisure to music are essential for the development of this particular quantifiable skill. There is a neat web-site detailing this where you can measure your performance in this area. I didn't bother, cos I know I'm crap.
Genes only get translated to protiens. What happens beyond that is still largely a mystery so too many comments about what they do and don't do are pretty premature. There are a lot of "twin studies" going on around the world to control for gene influence, which are producing some very interesting results.
I never said genetics have nothing do with it, that would be absolutely absurd. I simply said that the majority of it is not genetics.
Re: Singing, I sucked a lot more at singing before I started practicing. Unless there is something wrong with her vocal system then she should be capable of learning to sing, exercising her diaphram and vocal chords to produce a professional sound.
You seem to have become quite upset over this discussion and maybe that's why you had trouble understanding what I was saying. I certainly did not backpeddal, this thread began discussing things about synaptogenesis and only became an issue of talent by some obscure interpretation of what I was saying. So, it's not that I was backpeddaling, just that we are not discussing something completely different. What makes a basketball player? Height? Some of the best players are just over 5' tall. Skills? Obtained through coordination and physical training.
I won't discredit all of those studies, but I'd be skeptical of the method used to determine the results. It's extremely difficult to determine what effect a gene has on a grown adult.
I'll think you find that at least the ones done through QIMR in Brisbane were pretty careful with their methodology. Twin studies are done on identical twins, so you are looking solely at differences produces by nurture, as the nature is identical. I am not right up on what they have found, but I know they have been following a lot of twins for 20yr or so, so you might be interested to check it out.
I'm familiar with dizygous twin studies as it's the primary method of determining the effect of genetics. But even in Bailey & Pillard's study of sexual preference in dizygous twins there was only a 50% concordance, which is inconclusive to me, yet they assert that it implies some genetic determination of sexual preference. I don't know, I suppose it could, but shouldn't it be 100%? Or are 50% in the closet about their sexuality? Or does environment affect preference in some other way?
See what I mean, like some will draw the conclusion that Bailey & Pillard proved genetics affect sexuality, some will conclude the opposite, I've historically gone with Schaffer's interpetation that it implies genetics, but I'm still thinking it's somewhat inconclusive.
See, I think the problem there is in the conclusion. A 50% concordance for something that only has an either/or outcome suggests to me taht gentics plays no role, and that it is entirly developmental. What do you mean by "dizygous" ? Don't you mean monozygous, (one zygote) ?
Why stifle a kids imagination at all? If you are so big on 'nurture' then why would that even be an option for you? Did you even look into the studies concerning imagination & memory? Imagine things that MIGHT be real, eh? That's a funny statement.
You don't think what quanitfies imagination? Your leprechaun can wear a pink tutu if that is to your liking.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
That's what I meant, sorry, I was dealing with something else, your right, monozygous. Identical twins.
It's not stifling their imagination. It's simply aligning their perspective of reality, with reality. They are still going to have imagination from looking through a telescope up at the stars. The most fascinating things, the greatest influences on "spirituality" or imagination are natural phenomena like the night sky.
obviously you know nothing of children
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Whatever you say Jean Piaget :rolleyes:
"Obviously you know nothing about anything." nah nah nah "I'm not listening to you." "blah blah blah"
But you are so open to others thoughts and ideas that don't go along with yours.
These debates are like banging your head into a wall sometimes.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Surely ahnimus , you know that teh Piaget's developed their devlopmental model by observing their children alone, and a sample of one has zero statistical power. Their observations formed a hypothesis, which they never tested. That is not science !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i didn't mean it as 'nah nah nah, i'm not listening to you'
but as abook already said, let's compare how you handle the conflicting views of others....
you are a smart guy, you act like you have to try and prove that, maybe it's just the way you interact w/ ppl...you are a smart guy, ppl know that, but that doesn't mean you aren't wrong sometimes, everyone is wrong at times, that's just a fact...just b/c anyone feels it or has a certain perception, no matter how true it may seem to them, that doesn't make it true
you don't have kids, you are going by what others said, if you were a parent you would know how individual a child is, not just a 'blank slate'...in a way they can be, they can be warped and 'molded' and 'trained'...but they also have an inate characteristic of individuality...it's up to those raising them which path they lead...personally, i think beautiful flowers should be cared for and nurtured and helped to grow, not mold and construct
but, that's just my 2 cents
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
A blank slate with a predetermined future. Imagine that!
And mine!
who's up for donning a green coat and red wig and dancing a little bit far away from the cliffs of moher tonight?
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
I agree that looking in a telescope is great fun, but if you have kids, do not push your ideas of imagination on them. Otherwise you are stifling their creativity & it is bound to back-fire. When I was a teenager, I listened to music that my parents despised. Luckily, they allowed me to have my own tastes and did not ban my music. My dad was a republican, yet he encouraged me to research topics & develop my own beliefs (we did have great debates, which I miss). He would have been disappointed if was like a robot that just followed his views blindly like a sheep. He taught me critical thinking skills and allowed me to grow into the person I am today. When you have kids, don't think of them as a blank slate for the molding, nurture them and show them how to develop their own ideas and views.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
A human being begins as a blank slate and begins to learn in the prenatal environment. They develop a personality through behavior modelling and so on. I'm not denying that they do develop personalities and it happes quickly. All of this stuff happens really fast.
I realize that it's beyond my control to make decisions or perceive for my child. That's not what I'm talking about, nor do I recall using the word control. But it is within my control to modify the environment my children grow up in. For example, I don't watch television, so they probably won't have any idea what Blues Clues is until they get into school. They will have toys for bolstering coordination and thought patterns. I'll constantly switch up their toys so they have new more challenging things to work with. I'm not talking about taking a blank child and uploading my software, that is totally ridiculous. Hence why I used the word influence.
yeah, they exist, on a Lucky Charms box. if ANYONE tells me they've seen a leprechaun, i'll be the first one to offer to drive them to the pot of gold that's at the mental institution.
When I was a little kid, I spent hours searching for a 4 leaf clover. Least my parents could do is tell me just how rare they are. I wasted many hours of life looking for a damn 4 leaf clover.
Man, four leaf clovers seemed to jump right in my lap as a kid
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Maybe you are Irish? Short? Have a certain affinity to green?