ramin

Whether he responds or not does not change the fact that he flat-out dismissed me and accused me of knowing nothing about psychology. That's political determinism for ya (trust me Coral, it exists, and strongly).

Coral, do such posts as these where people fully dismiss the importance of the environment not prove my point of the illogical emergence of genetic determinism in current psychology? I mean, look at the proposterous tone of the above post, all justified with reference to "psychology."

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

Anyone hear the term "Anti-Social Personality Disorder"? Well, why didn't anyone ever come up with the idea that this is really Anti-Personality Society Disorder? Why couldn't it be that Society is abusive towards some inhabitants, and this turns into mental problems for them, such as anger? To resolve this issue we can ask: as "Anti-Social Personality" is shown and known to be influenced by an environmental variable, what is this variable?

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. 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. 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.

Not enough ground Diatom. You don't here much about it, though it would be good to integrate into theories of the social world to test its robustness. I'm afraid this might be due to the political nature of the concept: no one wants to be blamed for "accidental" indoctrination. If you are interested, we should attempt to test the theory in real life. I personally am surrounded by people who repeat and apply bogus ideas given to them via commercial outlets and ideology, and would be interested.

oh yea, cheetos suck... too skinny and hard...

That's interesting because autism reminds me of Solipsism, a highly regarded philosophy of mind that other minds don't exist... Plus people have problems attending to others' beliefs & feelings and I would agree that Autistics are simply an extreme suppression of intentionality for this attention.

Very clear and entertaining, thanks. That's perhaps the most I ever could be engaged in wotzits. I believe these used to be called cheetos in the us.

Why couldn't this be called the baby's initial state instead of 'temperment'? 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. 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. Optimal? Why not minimal? Genes, shmemes, how are they relevant to psychological outcome? They are the groundwork for highly plastic traits. Skeleton & flesh...I don't know. How about genes provide the biology while the environment shapes the psychology? 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. The whole paradigm is clearly miseducating and even inaccurate and inhumane. Don't forget, genes are important in deficient environments: a contradictory claim for the importance of genes. I bet you anything schizophrenia does not and did not exist in all societies, due to their environment, and not genes. It is clear that this is possible as even in North America some environments don't allow the disorder to develop. And as you can see, absence of sch. in another society would not be due to genes because people from all types of places can get it.

I take what you're saying as proof that these are easily preventable mental suppressions, i.e. highly plastic. That's why genetics would seem more an afterthough or a distraction when speaking about them.

There seem to be some smart people who highly disagree with you. Stereotypical and classical are NOT the same thing. LOL... Not lethargy, calm. Attention-span takes patience. Cannibus is NOT a depressant. Again, you're getting it mixed up with the stereotype. And what effect does Ritalin show? What if you can't concentrate because you are too hyperactive?

I must agree with your statements. Fully automatic prevention of disorders is a good idea and the idea of drug use is opposed to this in the long run. I guess we're just comparing treatment effectivenesses (pros vs. cons) for when the disorders are allowed to form in the first place, and there being no natural motivational healing for it. I think this raises an important issue. Whether marijuana might treat a disorder or not depends on how motivated society and supporting networks/people are to treat disorders, as that seems to be the most natural path. If society and/or people are not willing or capable of doing this, then effective alternative (and less natural) treatments must be weighed out. Let me then refine the argument: Marijuana might be a medium between these two options, i.e. the transfer from the unnatural and ineffective treatments, to the natural social treatments, especially for ADHD.

Ok, I had a few questions, if anyone's got answers. Also I have a few points and notes to add about this topic. 1. Cannibus Dosage-Method. When someone says "Therepeutic Use of Cannibus" are they talking about smoking cannibus or some sort of other dosage? For instance, cannibus has been shown to help AIDS patients with stress, and it has been shown to alleviate many other cognitive problems such as attention-span, creativity, decreased agitation. But does this refer to smoking it, because then these benefits have to be weighed with the costs? A note on the costs: the above benefits seem to be mutually exclusive to some psychological costs: you either profit from it or you lose completely. A specific example of this is that creativity requires good memory operation. Some do this operation well, some don't and have bad memory when high or smoking it too much. These psychological costs are different from lung and saliva costs. Those costs indicate that smoking it too much puts you at risk for cancer, though it is not clear whether there is heterogeneity in picking up cancer or whether some other variable is mediating the effect. Testoserone goes down after Marijuana, and so does sperm count, but these may be minor effects as testoserone is affected only during the high (which may even be a good thing: relax those impulses!), as sperm count does not decrease by much (I think). 2. Will and should Marijuana treat ADHD? Reasoning for yes: When Marijuana is mixed with motivation, attention-span increases. Dosage by people that show symptoms of ADHD and are motivated to change will lead to learning of the correct steps, correct mentality (thoughts), and correct pace, for better control of their own environment. Scaffholding will assist in this as well, such as making the environment simple but posing problems for the person to solve. This is a cost-effective, naturalistic, effective, and disorder preventative method and thus also should be implemented. Furthermore, there is potential for this to work for all people with these problems, as long as they are motivated to change and are given the freedom to do so. Furthermore, the risks involved are not major: the procedure could involve temporary small doses.

Coral Rhedd, I just want to say that you're awesome! I'm all for embracing one's state and getting benefits for the state, but that state is not meant to be the same across time and generations, so neither will the benefits. I know you're an English major and not a linguist, but wouldn't it be the very definition of determinism if we acted as if these were viable labels that must exist in the future, if this future does not necessitate the formation of the disorders in the first place? We talk about disorders as if they have to exist even if we altered the environment, which could only take 10-20 years if there were educated and smart politicians in power. This is a type of "bending society" as you put it, but in a deeper, preventative way. Once a disorder forms, it has formed, and it is SOMETIMES too late for full recovery without treatment. When it is too late, society is so bent towards health that their dignity and benefits would be the best. Aside from this I'm curious about your opinion about something quite different, which I guess I'll make a thread out of...

The comparison of bio-chemistry's incompleteness, say, or even physics', is in a very different sense than that os psychology as a science. These analogies need some refinement, and I've already shown how psychology is much more an art than the other sciences in many ways. A deficient environment is one that withholds basic necessities. In such circumstances, genes snowball into control and produce diseases. The taking control of genes due to a deficient environment is the main mechanism for mental disease, not the cause. Mental illnesses, childhood, adult; pressures on other cultures, mental illness in other cultures; conflict; poverty; disease.

The science of the subject is inherently incomplete and thus inaccurate. Their analyses of gene-environment interaction are inaccurate, because they neglect uncountable assumptions in their analyses, such as the fact that genes are not etiologically important in deficient environments. Understanding genetics is great and beneficial, but genes do not "contribute" to many diseases, they are solely the medium, while the environment is the cause, in most cases. The "science" doesn't know the role of its core findings and variables in the real world, and has dumb theories guiding it currently. This reinforces, appallingly and unfoundedly via science, political and individual determinism and oppression.

You love playing the semantics. Incomplete and inaccurate are many of the times the same thing, though psychology is filled of trivial, incomplete, unestablished, biased and presumptuous stuff as well.