Jump to content

ramin

Senior Members
  • Posts

    191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ramin

  1. So your argument is that with no argument genetics is the cause for mental illness or psychological disorders? "Newtonian," take a logic course. Do the world a favour, with your brave dogma and distortion, and take a logic course. And I shouldn't forget the other part of your argument, that what I say is BS and yours is factual and statistical. That's good. Also, you can't use words such as "proven" and get away with it. Saying something is proven when it isn't promotes dogma and when it comes to finding clear social solutions for disorders, it is oppressive. Good day.
  2. If I was going to simplify the case I would say: decreased motivation to understand and care for a person directly. But deficient environment is no doubt relative to the person. Its whatever exists or does not exist external to a person's subjective state. If a person needs certain things, many others might not, but if it is basic and the environment doesn't provide it, the environment is deficient. These certain things may be guidance, perspective taking, spending time, proactive care.
  3. Not quite. I'm saying genes don't constitute fixed behaviors later on. The environment determines how genes are to be manifested. In deficient environments, as is implied by "deficient," factors that are supposed to lead to normal behavior are not supplied, and thus the genetic makeup of the person becomes important in determining their pathology. Because if the environment was good the genes would not lead to pathology, I'm saying genes should not be stressed causally.
  4. You thought I was saying the genes are not relevant to most disorders. Then you saw that people say genes are important, and they have evidence of it. Then I said that for the most part those genes are only manifested in deficient environments. Now do you get it?
  5. Environment does not just play a role, it plays the relevant role. You should have understood my argument by now. My argument is not that enviornment plays A role, but that it plays THE RELEVANT role, for most disorders. Genetics is, as mentioned, almost irrelevant. You don't have to repeat your vague and unsubstantiated notions. Where did you read this statistics thing? I've read it too, but like a true psychologist should, I've analyzed it carefully and now see past it. The results of the hereditory factors have unsubstantiated assumptions, and are clearly biased. So once again, you have no argument. It's obvious you are trying to act like you know while you don't. You don't understand the argument, and have a hard time explaining anything. The fact that genetics is for the most part irrelevant? Obviously that is groundbreaking, literally. Regardless of environment? No, only a minority of psychological disorders such as Huntington's. Anyone who's informed knows at least that much. Even schizophrenia requires environmental stresses. The majority of disorders, no matter what their pervasiveness, require deficient environments. There is consensus on this issue. Now, what seems to be out of the intellect of today's psychologist is that genetics is for the most part irrelevant. Tracing a disease to a genetic cause DOES NOT MEAN GENETICS ARE IMPORTANT. Vulnerable phenotypes will for the most part be manifested pathologically in deficient environments. If you are to respond to anything I say, you will have to respond to the last sentence.
  6. So now you're directing criticism at me (as I had previously assumed) for what reason?
  7. Again with the autism. Do you know anything about the disorder? Furthermore, my main argument is with regard to the paradigm which excludes intense environmental variability. What follows is that disorders as pervasive as autism could be curtailed environmentally, even if the kids are genetically predisposed: NOTE, however, that there is little evidence that the differences in brain of autistics is prenatal. And, as mentioned before, even if it is prenatal, it does not mean that it is the cause. Environmental deficiency is still fully plausible. The logic goes again: Two kids have different genes, but the same environment. One develops a disorder, another doesn't. This does not mean the disorder is genetic- it could very well be because of a deficient environment. Difference does not mean disorder. There could be enough plasticity in the brain region (I believe in the case of autism it is the limbic system) that given a good environment, the brain takes a normal path, or functions normally. This applies to an intensely higher degree for most other psychological disorders and conflicts, making genetics really simply irrelevant.
  8. The question is why there isn't a sociology thread, while there is a psychology thread. The two approaches are very different, yet related, thus very important to co-exist. Can you give me a good response on this?
  9. By directing the comment at the thread, you implicitly directed the comment at me at least partially. Nevertheless, I apologize. I did not dismiss myself however. The intent was that if you don't like the topic, you're the one that is missing out. It turns out you like the topic?
  10. Don't forget to try the east a bit for classical as well. Out of the Europeans, boy do I love Bach... You know he's credited in books on consciousness for a profound, perhaps the most, "musical information"? That's sweeeet...
  11. Accountability is the most important factor in that kind of motivation. You have to be accountable to yourself. Your life has a meaning, you have certain goals, and you following your goals enables you to function well with others. I would simply delve into the social life intead of withdrawal, and monitor myself to make sure I'm living up to my own potential. This is for sure incomplete...
  12. So I worded it wrong... The question is why there isn't a sociology thread, while there is a psychology thread. The two approaches are very different, yet related, thus very important to co-exist. Can you give me a good response on this?
  13. The thing is AzurePhoenix, that how important are genes in most cases? The popularity of blaming genes is under a fully flawed paradigm. The paradigm explicitly states that the environment is a function of the child's actions, not its own nature and variability. There is obviously a huge problem with that. There is less and less proactive communication with infants, children, and people in general, constituting a deficient system and norms, which for some phenotypes means not enough environmental stimulation to develop necessary areas of the brain correctly. Some phenotypes need a good environment, some don't. Genes obviously has something to do with it. But here's the punchline: when there is a deficient environment. So this means genes are not at all as important as commonly held, and applied. That's the logic.
  14. That's a wrap for you folks. Let people who are interested in debate, understanding others' perspective, and not throbbing with defensiveness and insult participate.
  15. "Their environments are the same. Also' date=' are they both disordered? The argument is that genetics is not important in disorders. Also, just a note that the sample of identicals reared apart is highly biased." How is this important again? If the environment triggers genes that would have been unimportant if the environment wasn't insufficient, you prove my point! This is very vague. What do you mean? Do you have an example? Foolish? Not with your arguments at all. Furthermore, my comments have clearly shown its overlooked: "The best clue I can think of right now against arguments made FOR genetic importance, is the ridiculousness of the paradigms used. The paradigm is that genetics produce an early temperment which influences reactions from the environment. Yet, for some mysterious reason, the fact that only certain types of environment would "react" instead of proact towards a child is fully left out. The real paradigm should clearly state that a child is reacted to depending on the nature of the reacting environment."
  16. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO RESPOND HAS TO RESPOND TO THIS CLAIM: Genetics can be blamed for anything in a deficient environment
  17. Will someone provide an argument relevant to the topic, or for many, just an argument instead of defensiveness?
  18. Psychology John, psychology...
  19. Why did you avoid the argument? I said genetics can be blamed for anything in a deficient environment. Here' date=' I'll make it bold. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO RESPOND HAS TO RESPOND TO THIS CLAIM: [b']Genetics can be blamed for anything in a deficient environment[/b]
  20. I guess you don't know much about arguments... and can't handle someone who might be right.
  21. Environment allows genes to load the gun in the first place.
  22. oooh spelling why would I think twice about saying bye to someone who calls an important debate a "farce"?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.