ramin

Moreover, despite your feelings of grandeur and arbitrary stigmatization of marijuana use as a reason against it, it is this very stigma against marijuana use- clearly this social phenomenon (as represented by yourself)- that reinforces other repressive forces and causes abuse and dependence. Difference is not disorder, But if it is deemed as such, and the self is denied socially, it will seek self-respect via other available means.

That could definately be the reason, but people are too ignorant to realize heterogeneity. Some things deemed by some institutions are "just wrong," as long as those institutions make people "feel good." It's the drug of vanity... Moreover, one can be even much more precise and say it is due to "purpose of use." Recreational and therapeutic purposes are multivarious and some people might easily use it recreationally in a way that has the opposite effect of our friend here. You've probably heard of very smart people who use it and become much more academically creative and motivated. Ramin

Ever heard of hetergeneity and purpose of use? Or no, there are no such things in reality?!

My comment is based on the notion that ADHD people, as well as people with other differences, lack self-confidence and centrality in this world, which are essential for helping them adjust or change themselves. In combination with a motivation for a goal of adjustment, it seems perfect. If you don't lack centrality, I couldn't imagine my comment applying to you. In fact, it would be very different.

We really, really 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

You can find it hard to believe, but I personally don't see why. I think the problem is in the term 'mind.' When I'm talking about the self, I'm definately not talking about psychology concepts which is often called one's mind. I find the that self is not genetic, as opposed to appearance; furthermore, that appearance is not related to the self. I think that 'personality' is the illusion of one's self being constituted by appearance and behavior.

If you're having a hard time communicating, maybe you need the swim.

What the hell are you talking about? Did you even bother reading my post? I spend time and effort in my posts and you ignore them for crowd-pleasing? You are NOT a scientist. I can word it as LOGIC, though it is COMMON SENSE LOGIC, and this was obvious. If you don't have a reply, don't reply!!! This is the LOGIC: Logic says that if someone is torturing two people and only one of them develops a mental disease, that the environment is more important. Don't waste any of my time any more if you're intimidated by the logic and have no response but irrelevancy. Perhaps you should get into crowd-pleasing instead, as you've made no argument against any of my claims on this thread, nor have you responded to the question on the thread. Who gives people like you the feeling of power? Talk about injustice...

What reason is there for me to think so? All humans have a self concept regardless of genes that work on principles that apply to each human. At least, why is this not so?

What gives YOU the right to post such a ridiculous post? If you don't have any argument against my common sense argument, don't take me down with you.

My perspective is that 'personality' is just another term for 'self,' and has nothing to do with genetics.

No, I believe in the self as opposed to personality, and I think it can be established empirically through situated cognition=current definitions of personality. It's an interesting question though. What do you think? Do you think self is not the real personality?

The ideology of thought & behavior control has definately taken too far a toll. You see people going against Marijuana here and there, claiming some kind of scientific basis for it, while making proposterous unscientific claims. Can you believe marijuana is being compared to meth on this thread, in attempt to say benefits of weed are irrelevant? Little do people know that marijuana is used for treatment for addiction to heroin and crystal and nicotine, the highly destructive drugs, furthermore that the little dependency on marijuana is a social phenomenon of stigma, isolation and repression. I'm not praising marijuana. But human rights are definately a problem in this world, including the freedom to explore without being stigmatized, shunned, and physically abused.

Actually they are. Parental environments that even have a threshhold for abusing their child are deficient, 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 communicate 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.

You don't have to accept them, 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?

Ok, let's see if you have any proof of nature being more important than nurture in this case... Be careful what you claim on here, furthermore watch out for playing semantic games with me, because this is a science forum where people have empirical evidence sometimes very handy, and I'm good at finding out when someone is playing semantic games. I explicitly stated that SOCIETY IS ABUSIVE NECESSARILY for the disorder, which can include isolation of the whole family, arbitrary conditions for dignity, lack of communication, influencing a lack of good parental motivation, labeling, and does not mean only parental abuse. Yet, you attempted to redefine abuse to be limited to childhood physical abuse or the witnessing of abuse. Second, your claim that parenting has nothing to do with the majority of cases is unfounded (without evidence) and false: 1- Research has shown that ASP disorder does not develop in caring families, and I will be able to give you references if you don't believe me 2- Here's a reference for increased risk of ASP disorder based on physical abuse and childhood neglect: Johnson, J.G., et. al (1999). Childhood maltreatment increases risk for personality disorders during early adulthood. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 600-606. 3- Psychological conclusions can not be based solely on empirical evidence, and you have to be able to argue your position well, which you have not done 4- Many cultures do not have the ASP problem 5- Psychology is a young science and there are many things it has not researched in order to rule out various explanation Watch your deterministic overconfidence, and your claims. Perhaps inquire and argue instead. I don't watch Hollywood shows, sorry. Good, I see you making a distinction. I know about the various manifestations of ASP (or, better, APS). "Trauma" is, as you say, seen to be clearly involved in highly immoral behavior. However, social factors still clearly instigate immoral behavior. Yelled at? Who said anything about being yelled at as being a cause? Various social factors. They're both highly important. What do you mean abused? You can't always see abuse, and abuse can take on various forms. For example, I can be tortured by a parent; or, I may be raised to believe in certain rights, and those things might be taken from me when I'm older and thus I'd go through the same psychological steps incrementally, and via different information pathways. Good, so you admit it there is a necessary social component? Then why defend deficient society so much?

Phenotype? You've got the wrong concept. That's supposed to be fully genetic. They say phenotype-environment interaction.

I'm sorry to laugh so much Void. Its just that you pretend to know more than me, but then give me absurd responses.

Hold on. I though we were talking about behavior? Is this the psychology forum? I swear I thought it was. Oh' date=' hold on, it is! And, when we've been talking about genes thus far, as seen throughout the post, we are talking about behavioral genetics, not basic maturation. So I'll make my question more clear: [b']How is anything but the caregiver's beliefs involved in the development of behavioral disorders and manifestation, given that these manifestations are not fully genetic disorders such as Huntington's Disease?[/b] You'd be surprised. And you're in rhetoric? The concept of temperment is unfounded, yet everyone goes along with it. That sounds like a bad religion. For instance, the most evidence you've provided to ground the term "temperment" in humans, is evidence in primates and in primate environments! As if there are not millions of years of difference, in environment and biology involved! LOL... Is this a joke? The point is that we were talking about "gene-environment" interactions, and you brought up Huntington's Disease. Quite tangential. Off topic, and you don't think dignity has anything to do with psychology? Sure, and we can make the environment so bad that only 10% of people don't develop mental disorders, then say it is "genetic." LOL.... What you have to realize is that society is the manipulation of the environment. Environments can withhold basic necessities that they are capable of providing. Not doing so is not a genetic matter. Or do you think if kids are isolated and not cared for, their "genetics" become important? The science you're using is incomplete for psychology. The way you treat psychology is that if something goes wrong, even if it involves irrational beliefs and actions in the environment, it is genetic, even partly. That's reductionism. Perhaps a more holistic approach to psychology is more whole? Again, you've provided no explanation for this "temperment" phenomenon and why is shouldn't be "the child's initial state" except for an invalid analogy with primates (invalid because of enormous differences in their biological and environmental abilities). I think in fact, you reduced the human environment's role to primate life! Second, you've given no example of this eerie "gene-environment" interaction pertaining to the majority of psychology disorders.