ramin

How am I wasting time by getting to the point???? Oh yeah, and sorry for the debate. Sure, why not. In any case, they are deficient and since w/out the deficiency genes are not triggered, genes are unimportant. Finally, some good questions. I mentioned before a lack of motivation to understand, get close, and be proactive with a child that is not "ideal" or "good" can constitue deficiency. You'll see all over textbooks that parents don't expect much from their children when their children do not do well on an IQ test. Or, parents will react negatively to a "negative" or "difficult" child. These trends, facilitated by the norms and ideals of current popular society, equal deficiency that becomes manifested biologically. A child's negativity can be easily countered with proactivity. In sum, there is no "potential." Things are just the way they seem, that simple. Have you ever heard of reductionism, determinism? That's what's increased. In other words, I'm not implying a one size fits all in any way. Genes are variability and diversity is good. But the basics my man, the basics, are being washed away. What about fixing the cause of the disorder: society, instead of blaming genes and letting politicians get away with bad decisions? Oh yes, I totally agree. Uninformed and inactive environment is a huge problem. But you saw past my point. I'm saying that the way the child is reacted to depends much less on the child than on the nature of the environment. Is that clearer? So now you're agreeing with BS? And why are you all so pissed off about this? This blaming genes seems to be a trend that you all have been influenced with, otherwise it wouldn't be so darn hard to have a conversation about. This is what page 23?

Can you provide some explanation? Do you know anything about plasticity or the "critical period"?

What's the confirmed body count in Iraq now, 100,000?

The sad thing about all this is the bush-basher bashers. It's not a matter of just "blaming." Obviously this president has problems with honesty and method. The only justification for Bush-supporters, in terms of foreign policy, seems to be that "bush-bashers" are "blaming Bush." Perhaps the low level of sophistication of this argument is not apparent?

Newtonian, I have an idea for us. I say, either pick one of the claims in the last bolded post, or, give your answer to this question: What factors during development influence a person to become who they are? Feel free to give your opinion as well Azure, or if anyone else has an answer...

EVERYONE, PLEASE, INSTEAD OF WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME, RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING. THIS IS THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD: We can continue the argument in a more precise manner. My main claim is not about single disorders like Huntington's etc; it is about the missing link in thinking about development and disorders. What follows is that genetics is unimportant in many cases that they are currently being emphasized, or even mentioned. The missing link is that 1-genetic contribution is greater in deficient environments. And so, we must take this under consideration. If a genetic contribution does not exist in a different, sufficient environment, usually in the form of a proactive environment, then the genetics are not important and the environment only should be the focus of improvement. This means, depression, drug-abuse, and to a good extent (but perhaps not fully) disorders such as schizophrenia and autism (though I can't be certain about severe autism as of yet), should not be deemed genetic disorders. They do not exist in basically sufficient environments. 2- heriditary estimates are flawed because the similarities they detect could be due to social forces such as imitation; furthermore, their assumptions are misleading and without evidence. One admitted assumption of these estimates are that each environment could be deficient. They simply have no way of finding out via their method. 3- the child's negative temperment does not bring a negative reaction. That's a temporary correlation. The cause is the nature of the environment reacting to the child. A negative temperment can become a positive one in an informed environment.

Yes, you don't get it. Keep working on it though... Talk about cults, you've obviously learned that freedom means not caring for kids, so letting "vulnerable genetics" have an effect, so ultimately your whole society can be fooled and take advantage of other societies. And hey, if any other societies want to buy it, great. You've followed the ultimate cult. I've obviously thought things through, and you just don't get it. Can it be more simple than this: "The argument is that genetics are "important" in deficient environments, and so, they are not important." If you don't want to respond to this, or any bolded material on this thread, then you're avoiding the argument. You've been rude, avoided the argument throughout, and have even been rude, subjective, with an oppressive attitude towards people with disorders. Your arguments have been simply angry "BS's" and "everything is proven" w/out providing any tangible proof which must be accompanied with an argument. Haven't you learned that empirical evidence can be interpreted tens of ways? You have to accompany your evidence with an argument, that also responds to counter-arguments such as mine. Save yourself the embarrassment. I bet anything many people have been relieved that someone dogmatic-promoting like you is being refuted, but have not written anything. Its because its hard to both pinpoint your biases, and further, there is pressure to conform. I have none of those pressures, and I've pinpointed about ten of your biases consistently here, and remained unanswered with regard to my argument. You have provided absolutely no analysis that a majority of disorders deemed disorders today, develop regardless of environmental factors. This is another unscientific sweeping notion of yours. Neither does anyone agree with that statement, even on this highly biased thread. I really don't know what you are doing in a scienceforums site with this stuff. You should go to some religion invention sites or something...

These jokes are pathetic Azure. I suggest you go a little slower and don't jump to conclusions simply to please an already biased crowd.

The argument is that genetics are "important" in deficient environments, and so, they are not important. If you have a degree, and can't understand this, than your Uni degree isn't worth anything. And, did I blame anything on autistic parents? I clearly stated that a deficient environment is produced by negative social trends. Furthermore, You have shown no evidence that genetics are important in most disorders or autism I want to be clear here, however, in what sense I am saying they are not important. I am saying they are not important when talking about causes/etiology.

Not even close. You've changed the definition of deficiency to adequacy. Being poor in no way means having a deficient environment. Uncared for is the only one I agree with in your statement. And here is your response, please read and answer to it carefully: If two people are uncared for, and one develops disorder X and another does not, you would say that genetics is important? This is also a response to your following analysis: What do you mean happiest of environments. If that environment is "happy" but neglects something basic, it is deficient, and allows pathology. I bet you wont' be able to explain the conditions for this "happy" environment relative to the child. So thus far, you still don't establish how genetics are important in the majority of cases. Calling people pathological fruitcakes is the very defition of today's trend of deficient environments. Only in a deficient environment would someone label mental problems in that manner.

That's the very issue. Genetics and Environment being both important is incredibly vague, is it not? We can't just dismiss the argument with that statement. The argument I am making, Glider, is that genetics are important determinants in deficient environments. Yes, you see the impact of genetics on alcoholism, but in deficient environments. Furthermore, the use of primate examples is unwarranted to explain human tendencies, as it does not prove anything. The environment could be deficient in both environments, or in only the primates'. That is exactly why I posted this topic, because this is always overlooked, just as you've shown. Genetics can be linked causally in deficient environments, while they are unimportant in adequate environments. This does not substantiate that "genetics and environment both play an important role." It only substantiates that environment does. Do you see this? Furthermore, you mentioned some brain differences. Have you considered the plasticity of the brain functions in question before using this in your argument? Last, are you aware of the assumptions underlying heridity estimates? One of the assumptions is that the environment may be deficient. So how important is this?

Well you should set high standards for yourself...

Also, let me clarify something for everyone on this thread. We can continue the argument in a more precise manner. My main claim is not about single disorders like Huntington's etc; it is about the missing link in thinking about development and disorders. What follows is that genetics is unimportant in many cases that they are currently being emphasized, or even mentioned. The missing link is that 1-genetic contribution is greater in deficient environments. And so, we must take this under consideration. If a genetic contribution does not exist in a different, sufficient environment, usually in the form of a proactive environment, then the genetics are not important and the environment only should be the focus of improvement. This means, depression, drug-abuse, and to a good extent (but perhaps not fully) disorders such as schizophrenia and autism (though I can't be certain about severe autism as of yet), should not be deemed genetic disorders. They do not exist in basically sufficient environments. 2- heriditary estimates are flawed because the similarities they detect could be due to social forces such as imitation 3- the child's negative temperment does not bring a negative reaction. That's a temporary correlation. The cause is the nature of the environment reacting to the child. A negative temperment can become a positive one in an informed environment. I'm sure there is more, but I'm sure they will come up soon...

No AzurePhoenix, ofcourse not. That's what they want you to think. Look at how much you are neglecting by your very statement, and even, look at your very statement. You are alleging marginal genetic weight. First, then, who gives a darn about something marginal in comparison to something substantial? Second, there are clear, complete, social explanations for First Nation drug and/or alcohol abuse, as well as anger, in this day in age, such as that Natives on the whole have lost identity and society.

Sure it could, but currently the trend is to do the opposite. Its much harder to say a genetic disorder such as Huntington's is due to the environment. Much easier to say drug-addiction, depression, anxiety, and mysteries such as autism, are genetic. That's the issue. That's exactly what I'm saying is going on here. Running away from responsible, accountable, society. Psychology can be influenced by ideology, and so can biopsychology. But not biology. Why not? (I agree) Diversity and variability exists and is good. The problem arises when the environment becomes simplistic and does not attend to differences. Then differences can become pathological.

Well don't wait for much Yes I did. I mentioned that many other things have gone up as well, such as neglect. Neglect can turn biological differences into disorders. Because you didn't respond to my argument. You can't blame genetics when there is a deficient environment allowing the genetics to take a certain path. Drug addiction is not even a matter of dispute. It is genetic only when someone is neglected and does not develop the right control. Sure, some might be born with better control, but that's irrelevant since control can be easily accomplished with a good environment. You see? Ofcourse you won't exclude me. I clearly presented just as logical of a position on autism as other explanations, even more logical. And the genes vs. environment thing is just obvious via simple logic, in accordance with empirical evidence. That is extreme, and I never said it. I said some norms and social influences and trends constitute the deficient environment. The parents, and even some institutions, are caught in the middle. For example, there is a high motivation for conformity, no matter what that entails. That poses pressures on children that start out different.

Call me

And that's where dogs and humans differ: cognitive power

It might be necessary though, because psychology w/out sociology is so incomplete. Also, won't people in the future be interested? And don't all the sciences apply to the science of society and social consciousness? I would think an engineer would have a say so in sociology more than psychology.

You probably think drug abuse is genetic too? Haven't you been reading my argument? Respond to the variable of deficient environment and stop running away!