Loading [MathJax]/extensions/TeX/AMSsymbols.js
Jump to content

ramin

Senior Members
  • Posts

    191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ramin

  1. It's interesting how many of you allege autism is a biological disorder while the very mystery of autism lies in the critical period of development. That just gives the green light to a destructive style society.
  2. My degree's from UBC. I'm not saying people here agree with me either. But you'll see in the future, at least. Psychology paradigms and education are quite guilty for current reductionist and determinist ways of thought.
  3. Ofcourse I can favour one for the other! Why wouldn't I be able to? Let me give you a reason. Say a child is born with a certain phenotype. An environmental variable is not present: the attempt to understand the child's mind. As a result, the child develops a disorder. Now, why was there no attempt? Due to social influence on the parents. If someone said, hey, let's alter this child's genes instead of making a more intelligent society, I would say let's make a more intelligent society! And clearly I have good reason to do so.
  4. The paradigm leaves out proactive versus reactive environments as a variable, fully assuming that all environments do and should react to the child according to the child's temperment. That's disgusting.
  5. Its that you have to understand logic to understand my argument. How many philosophy courses have you taken?
  6. Please don't post to me anymore. I emphasized several times there are exceptions.
  7. What this thread has proved is that it should be mandatory for psychology enthusiasts to take courses in basic philosophy.
  8. Let's just say I know more than you do. At least with reference to the arguments you've used thus far.
  9. Their environments are the same. Also, 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? You're misunderstanding my argument. Ofcourse both play a role. But the role of genetics is almost not important at all. Genes is not the beginning or the end. It is simply a code that makes an organism pathological in a deficient environment. 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." The snake and human environment are very different. You should've known that anyone can use that against your argument. Environment shapes the biology of humans that is relevant to disorders. The fact that genes code the beginning biology is no argument at all, since that starting biology can become anywhere inbetween pathalogical to non-pathalogical in all kinds of domains in just a few days even, depending on the environment. You've overlooked the critical period of biological development fully. Biology clearly takes various paths due to environment. That's why I'm saying that biology is overemphasized: because people think everything causal is biology, just as you've just done, while that is very false, and while that promotes determinism, and ironically (as freedom is "embedded" in Western culture) a far smaller human free will than true. Biology is the medium between environment and behavior.
  10. The easy thing to do is just blame everything on genetics...
  11. There's so much evidence of it I wouldn't know where to start. What do you want to talk about, anxiety, autism, gender, aggression, depression? Each and every one of these has either clearly been shown to not exist in non-deficient environments, or can be easily argued to be due to that. Social trends such as less quality family interaction, pressures of globalization also point clearly in the same direction. 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.
  12. An organism's reaction? No, that's due to the organism's perceived role in the environment as a function of past environment and the nature of the environment.
  13. Hardly. That's due to evolution and whatever came before that.
  14. Genes shmemes. Deficient environment is a necessary part of all psychological disorders period. Yet, they never mention it. If a deficient environmet is a necessary part of all psychological disorders, genetics are meaningless and unimportant. That's the argument.
  15. This isn't a good argument. The twin studies are biased. They assume many things. Here's a passage from my textbook: "the degree of similarity in the environment for the two types of twins is generally assumed to be equal or nearly so." Hardly a good assumption. And ofcourse identical twins will be socially influenced to be alike, not genetically.
  16. With a few exceptions, Environmental defiency is responsible for psychological problems, and genetics is simply a source of variability. All that stuff about things being "biological" is just reductionist crud. LOL....
  17. One of my professors started a sleeping pattern from 12-6 around when he was 26. Then, he decreased his sleeping time by five minutes exactly every week, the first adjustment being 12:05 to 6am. He did this for a long time and now he sleeps very healthy for 2 hours each night. He "tricked" his body into a 22 hour day! Supposedly, this takes a few years off your life, but it might be worth having more hours in your younger life than when you are 60ish.
×
×
  • 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.