Void

I just find it contradictary to use cannibis and "motivation" in the same sentence, beyond a lack of the latter! Lethargy is a classic symptom of being "stoned". Second, I don't think that cannbis will affect concentration in a positive way. Concentration takes effort or arousal, and lethargy will most likely not help. Why do you think these people take stimulants? Do you think Ritalin is a depressant? So if I wanted to relax, I would get stoned, but otherwise cannot see it being useful for someone who needs focus and attention.

Wait sec, now you want to say that psychology's incompleteness is different then other sciences? May I remind you, and I believe you may have stated this, that psychology, as a science, is quite new. Thus, the apparent disparity in "incompleteness" may be due to its relatively short existence. When you speak of basic neccesity, what are you refering too? It could mean food, water and air. It could mean love, comapanionship and social growth. Either way, genes are implicated in them all. An example: Infant temprament. Temprament is an infant's "personality" (for lack of a better word). It is largely a product of biology. Some are easy to sooth, others fussy and difficult to settle. These traits ultimately affect how caregivers respond to them, and how the child responds in turn. Such that, if a caregiver is warm and patient, a fussy child will slowely move toward behaving like the soothable child. However, if one places that same infant in a stressful scenario, they quickly revert to this more primed behavior pattern when not in the presence of the caregiver. The point is, a fussy child does not HAVE to become a fussy adult, GIVEN an optimal environment. Genes largely lay the ground work for the ensuing environment. Some preparedness only makes sense for survival. For example: Infant reflexes during the 1st month. Infants often display, what appears to be, intentional social behavior in the 1st month of life. Turns out, these are reflexes that fade away until 4 months of age, when a more fully developed frontal lobe allows for volitonal acts. Why do infants exhibit this pattern? Its easy when you think about it, they are dependent on a caregiver, and the reflexes help to ENGAGE the caregiver with the infant. This process helps n what later is called attachment. Point being, genes provide the skeleton of the system, and the environment the flesh. Only by interacting, and working together do they become a functioning human. Since your on the topic of mental disease, I will comment here as well. Did you know that schizophrenia is VERY hertiable? IF you have a twin with Schizo, you are, and I believe this is correct, 42 times more likely to have it yourself? No matter the environment. There is no doubt that a traumatic childhood can, more often than not, produce psychpathology in adolescence and adulthood. Phobias, PTSD, and drug addiction may have some genetic component, but are largely a product of chance, and environmental exposure. Menatl illness in other cultures is a whole different story, and it largley depends on the social norms and mores of that culture. But schizophrenics are schizophrenics in any culture, although they may have a different name, or treated as "communicating with the spirit world".

Science will ALWAYS be incomplete. No one is claiming to know the whole "truth". So how can you even hold that as a standard? The incompleteness is what drives science forward. Inaccuaracy is another beast, but one that is constantly being improved upon. It is these properties that create the fluid nature of knowledge. "genes are not etiologically important in deficient environments" In what sense are speaking of deficient? And why do you even leave this hanging out there? "while the environment is the cause, in most cases. " And it seems we are having a discussion of cause, without a product...What are you ascribing your claims too? The development of what?

"There is hardly such a thing as "gene-environment interaction,"" Why don't you read some contemporary literature in the field, and THEN we can have an intelligent conversation. "And that crap about this person can't do this that person can't do that, that's the very crap I'm talking about. That way of thinking, the assumption of people's inability, is what allows sicknesses to occur in the first place. And they've surveyed this stuff, you can't run away from it. North American culture assumes inability a lot. " My example concerning rich vs. poor neighborhoods stands in direct contrast to your summation of my views. Environment does count. Why don't you ease up on the pontificating and offer something interesting to talk about? In addition, you are confounding the scientific literature (i.e. results, findings, etc...)and the WAY policy makers USE that information. Just because there are biological limitations for some folks, DOES NOT MEAN THEY SHOULD BE DENIED OPPORTUNITY. Unfortuntately, the lay public are not properly trained to interpret and understand the findings. The findings are twisted by the media and improperly used by policy makers. So maybe it is a cultural phenomena, but that has nothing to do with the science of the subject.

You have it all wrong. Psychology, especially twin studies, suggest that a portion of the "variation" in human behavior is due to genes. That does not mean "determinism". It means exactly what I previously stated, the environment interacts with genes to produce a whole being. Is is the misinterpretation of what these genetic studies mean that results in their improper use in policy, ie. your status qou. Eugenics is dead bro, take it easy. Here is a great example of potentialism...Retarted individuals are NOT going to be geniuses. They just are not. They often have genetic defects, or have been damaged in utero. Actually, most developmental psychologists, advocate the concept of "plasticity". Or the ability of the organism to adapt and change to a ever changing environment. Face it, if you grow up in a well to do house hold, you are several more times likely to go to college, make more money, and start the cycle again. The same cannot always be said for someone growing up in an impoverished environment. No. Psychology admits that when we speak of causation, we are not refering to, and read carefully, COMPLETE causation. The world is a dynamic, constantly changing place and the data is IMMENSE!

Not everything in "hard" sciences is directly observable either. Ever seen a electron? No, of course not, you can only observe their behavior. Same applies for psychology. We can't see the what is "in" the mind, but from observing an individuals "behavior" we can sure make some reliable inferences. First of all, how can psychology be deterministic if we don't have "laws"? If anything, hard sciences are far more deterministic than psychology. Second, we do employ systematic methods. So our inferences are reliable to a point. Knowledge is no more than the probability of a truth, and while hard science can offer more accurate predictions, we do fairly well given the dynamic and multidetermined phenomena we study. I just don't understand you post, you say that we are not "stable" but "deterministic"....Sounds a little contradicting.

Yes, BUT even Vygotsky and his contemporaries acknowledge the maturational factor in development. If the system is not up and running in a biological sense, what good is environmental influence?

What, and you don't think society affects biology? Take a look at system dynamics theory and "maybe" you'll get an idea of where modern evolutionary developmental psychology is going. Its all about gene-environment interactions and genetic assimilation. Not a science my ass.

What about it? Seems fairly obvious to me.

You mean Arts & Humanities? Yes, that can be true, but I see a new movement toward psychology and other social sciences breaking off into schools or colleges of there own. Look at the University of California, Irvine, which as a School of Social Ecology. Point being, social sciences are clearly different from subjects such as English literature, History, etc...

Psychoanalytic has been tested in scientific manner. Just look at research during the 1950's with the work of Robert Sears. Unfortunately, the concepts were investigated under a behaviorist frmaework. Concerning the therapeutic benefits, Gene Glass conducted a meta-analysis that showed "talk-therapy" as working just as well as other techniques.

Depends on how those tests are consturcted. If the are empirically created, then they can be just about anything that predicts. For example: Depressives are known to endorse a question on the MMPI (an empirically constructed test) that states something to the effect of: I am thirsty often or I often feel thirsty. It sounds like a weird question, but it is correlated with a diagnosis of depression, so we include it in to the scale. That leads me into my next point, all those seemingly wierd questions are part of a "scale", or multiple items that yield a score on that particular construct/domain.

Well, its a good thing a wrote "take" rather then steal. Steal implies intention, however, I have "taken" things from work, usually unintentionally. Point being, if you construe "take" as "steal" and endorse the question in the negative, your probably hiding something. However, if you construe "take" as "accidentally leaving with an item" or "unintentionally forgetting to leave that tape measure on my desk" then you will most likely endorse the question in the positive...because MOST people have acciedently taken something.

We live in a "test" society. They are in place at every level in life. Whether your trying to get into school, outta school, get a job, get a diagnosis, etc...They are ubiqutous. Some are good, and some are shitty. Thats how it goes. When DECISIONS are made using tests, psychometric standards for an acceptable test are quite stringent. However, MOST employers do not understand this, and consequently rely on crummy tests. Tests that are supposed to compliment an interview, and other background information. Honesty/integrity tests usually have a LIE scale built in, sort of like the MMPI (F scale?). Anyhow, I like to think they are good at screening out idiots, if anything. Someone who has the balls to say they have NEVER taken ANYTHING from work (mind you, some tests ask if you have taken a pens, pencils, erasers, etc...) probably should not be hired. One also has to consider the job applied for. I applied for a food server(waiter) job while I was getting my BA and had to take the 16PF! However, when I thought about it, it made sense to give someone who will have to interact with the public a personality test. Someone who lacks agreeableness might not perform well and quit. Companies do not like to lose money on training.

Have you read Mind in Society?

Come on, can't take a joke all of sudden?

Ok ok...I will retract my statement...A probably causes B.

I never asserted 100% certainty. My whole post points to the logical argument that we can never know anything for "certain"...All knowledge is based on probability. In my example, one used by Hume himself IMO, I make a sensible assertion about the most probabilistic causal explanation. I can rule out other possible explanations, and increase the "confidence" of my probable causal factor.

And what is cause? Is it something "out there" in reality, or is it, has Hume contended a product of the mind? Constant conjunction or necessary connection? Even through experimentation we are unable to assert "certainty". Everything we know is probablility, and the degree of confidence you have in those predictions is what we call knowledge. Let me show you how correlation can demonstrate causation. If I were to hit you in the face a, what was it, googol times? You would feel pain. We can calculate that correlation. Now does it makes sense that the pain caused me to hit you? Could the pain be the result of actions of some supernatural being? Might the pain be caused by some unknown third variable? The answer, in all probability would be no in each of these alternative explanations. Most likely, MY ACTIONS caused your pain, and I feel perfectly comfortable asserting that it was my fist that CAUSED your pain. The same thinking operates in a science such as psychology. IF it makes reasonable sense, and alternative hypotheses have been ruled out, then A leads to B. You even impicitly acknowledge this in your last sentence. Prediction is knowledge.

I'm sorry, which one? You asked two. One regarding advancement...In which I say, no, and one concerning ethics and politics, in which I stated my agreement, but it depends on the level of analysis. IRB's act in accordance to some global agreed upon act about scientific ethics, that I believe was put in place after WWII...not sure though...memory fails me now! I would assert that science is not necessarily dependent on experimentation. Description of phenomena is just as important as the demonstration of causal relationships. Description usually comes first.