Plastic human mind (Split from Modeling the psychic space)

[Lorentz Jr]

You mean do the social sciences exist? Yes, people try to do that all the time.

My own personal theory is that (a) the human mind is more or less entirely plastic (i.e. impressionable) at birth, so almost nothing can be said about its initial state (except that there basically is none); (b) it gradually loses plasticity during its lifetime, becoming more and more locked into various beliefs, attitudes, and habits; (c) a lot of cultural history reflects the ways in which people's belief systems are affected by those of older generations; and (d) the older generations have lost most of their psychic plasticity and are responsible for the continuity of their cultures.

There are also more specific theories about biologically influenced behavior in developmental psychology, and about unconscious human behavior in depth psychology and behavioral economics, but there's also a lot of less scientific theory in things like mainstream macroeconomics and the shallower theories of pop psychology.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

My own personal theory is that (a) the human mind is more or less entirely plastic (i.e. impressionable) at birth, so almost nothing can be said about its initial state (except that there basically is none);

Evidence confirms (and has for a very long time) that your personal theory is false. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa#Psychology_and_neurobiology

 

6 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

b) it gradually loses plasticity during its lifetime, becoming more and more locked into various beliefs, attitudes, and habits;

We use heuristics to save time and energy. That makes it look like old dogs cannot learn new tricks, but again the evidence suggests otherwise (except perhaps for language acquisition). 
 

8 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

There are also more specific theories about unconscious human behavior in depth psychology and behavioral economics.

Mostly those theories suggest that the concepts of conscious and unconscious minds are badly outdated nonsense. 

[Lorentz Jr]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

Evidence confirms (and has for a very long time) that your personal theory is false.

Your exaggeration of my theory is false. Babies aren't born believing in democracy or capitalism or communism or Christianity or Islam or Judaism or science or any other cultural belief system.

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

We use heuristics to save time and energy. That makes it look like old dogs cannot learn new tricks, but again the evidence suggests otherwise (except perhaps for language acquisition).

Again, only your exaggeration is false. Got some mommy issues, princess?

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

Mostly those theories suggest that the concepts of conscious and unconscious minds are badly outdated nonsense. 

Those theories are politically motivated propaganda.

Edited February 4, 2023 by Lorentz Jr

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Babies aren't born believing in democracy or capitalism or communism or Christianity or Islam or Judaism or science or any other cultural belief system.

I reckon then it’s good that I never suggested otherwise. 

2 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Those theories are politically motivated propaganda.

Yeah, I didn’t figure you’d take this seriously. Greatly appreciate the early confirmation that you can justifiably be ignored on this. 

[swansont]

13 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Got some mommy issues, princess?

!

Moderator Note

The subject needs to be discussed without such personal conjecture

 

[Lorentz Jr]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

The subject needs to be discussed without such personal conjecture

 

The subject needs to be discussed without negative spin doctoring by people with hostile agendas. Where's the scary red warning for this post, Dr. Moderator?

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

The subject needs to be discussed without negative spin doctoring by people with hostile agendas.

Personal theories must be backed up with evidence and you should expect to be challenged. “hostile agenda” has to be more than your say-so

 

9 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Where's the scary red warning for this post, Dr. Moderator?

There isn’t one; it was not directed at an individual.

[Lorentz Jr]

58 minutes ago, swansont said:

There isn’t one; it was not directed at an individual.

Wow! That's a great excuse. I'll have to brush up on my lawyering skills so I can make posts like that. Thanks for the tip, Dr. Moderator, and you have yourself a spectacular day!! 😆

Edited February 4, 2023 by Lorentz Jr

[joigus]

17 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

My own personal theory is that (a) the human mind is more or less entirely plastic (i.e. impressionable) at birth, so almost nothing can be said about its initial state (except that there basically is none); (b) it gradually loses plasticity during its lifetime, becoming more and more locked into various beliefs, attitudes, and habits; (c) a lot of cultural history reflects the ways in which people's belief systems are affected by those of older generations; and (d) the older generations have lost most of their psychic plasticity and are responsible for the continuity of their cultures.

(I emphasised the spots where you came across as kind of dogmatic in the face of evidence to the contrary.) A child with disfunctional FOXP2 genes won't speak properly no matter how much plasticity you hammer into them. It is widely accepted today --I think-- that human behaviour is a complex result of interaction between genes and environment. So this assumption of yours seems like in tatters, to say the least. I suppose that's what @iNow meant. Or something along those lines. I'm willing to learn more if I'm mistaken.

You, as we say in my country, entered the scene like an elephant in a china store. I do appreciate your contributions to the forums --very much--, especially in the area of physics. So, please, take it down a notch and stay calm. We need you in the physics department. Too many loonies out there. We're learning from each other, as @MigL said in quoted thread.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

entered the scene like an elephant in a china store

You have elephants in your stores in Spain ?

We have bulls in ours.

 

 

[geordief]

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

You have elephants in your stores in Spain ?

We have bulls in ours.

 

 

Well I am glad this conversation was moved out of my Psychic Space

[Lorentz Jr]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

A child with disfunctional FOXP2 genes won't speak properly no matter how much plasticity you hammer into them.

Neither will a rock, because it has no genes at all. And no theory about engines will apply to an engine with a broken crankshaft, a blown head gasket, or a blob of concrete stuck in the intake manifold. I was referring to normal, healthy (human) babies, which I don't think is an especially radical assumption for a general theory.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

 It is widely accepted today --I think-- that human behaviour is a complex result of interaction between genes and environment. So this assumption of yours seems like in tatters, to say the least.

Which assumption? I said people change over time, and I said older people enforce cultural norms, so that means they're part of the environment that affects young people. And I said babies are impressionable, meaning they can learn any language and grow into any belief system. I said they have little or no initial state, not that they have little or no initial aptitude, or that they all have the same aptitudes.

Edited February 4, 2023 by Lorentz Jr

[mistermack]

20 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

My own personal theory is that (a) the human mind is more or less entirely plastic (i.e. impressionable) at birth, so almost nothing can be said about its initial state (except that there basically is none); (b) it gradually loses plasticity during its lifetime, becoming more and more locked into various beliefs, attitudes, and habits; (c) a lot of cultural history reflects the ways in which people's belief systems are affected by those of older generations; and (d) the older generations have lost most of their psychic plasticity and are responsible for the continuity of their cultures.

I would have a slightly different take on it. From birth onwards, babies are very trusting. They might ask lots of questions, but that's just because they are primed to learn. As they get older, they begin to learn that not everything they are told can be trusted, and they question in a different way, not just for facts, but to test the facts they are given. 

But they are plastic in some ways. If you hammer any religion into a child from a young age, there's a good chance they will keep it till they die. But that's often because it's constantly reinforced day in day out, and boosted by social pressures. Also, the religious stories are carefully designed, to fulfill wishful thinking, so it's made to be something you WANT to be true. And that's true of most cons. 

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

I said they have little or no initial state, not that they have little or no initial aptitude, or that they all have the same aptitudes.

Have you studied baby/mother communication ?

And who teaches (most) babies to cry ?

Edited February 4, 2023 by studiot

[Lorentz Jr]

28 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I would have a slightly different take on it.

Pretty similar though, I would say. "trusting" just means "open to suggestion or influence".

I mentioned this in @geordief's thread because he was asking about experimentally supported theories. In addition to behavioral economics, I should lave listed developmental psychology, because it's significantly dictated by genetics.

The problem with other theories (especially specific sociological areas, such as economics and political science) is exactly that human minds can develop into almost anything, and almost all social theories are based on assumptions about human nature that I think don't always apply. They may apply to large groups of individuals in the same culture (for example, Freud's ideas in the Victorian age), but then the culture changes and the theories don't work anymore. That was my whole point: Theories only seem to work for a while because they're tested on individuals who grew up with the same cultural influences.

20 minutes ago, studiot said:

Have you studied baby/mother communication ?

And who teaches (most) babies to cry ?

This is another comment I was going to make: I'm mostly referring to more abstract characteristics like culture and personality, which are important factors that influence how people behave (which, again, is what geordief was asking about). I'm going to assume that we all know crying is biologically built into human babies (as is laughing, which doesn't apply to other species), and I'm not sure what the point of the baby/mother thing is, except that it's (obviously) one of the primary influences in the baby's environment.

Edited February 4, 2023 by Lorentz Jr

[joigus]

10 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

I was referring to normal, healthy babies, which I don't think is an especially radical assumption for a general theory.

There is ultimately no such thing as normal, healthy babies, the very same reason why there isn't the right tallness, or why lactase persistence is neither good nor bad. It's an interaction between genes and environment that tells what traits will develop, and which ones are more convenient to our reproductive success, or to our success measured in any other standards. Because many genes have to do with psychological development, I think it stands to reason that personality is not a program written on a blank slate by the environment, as you seem to have suggested. Or perhaps I did misunderstand you, which is entirely possible, in which case I apologise.

But my post was more about the manner of your answer really. No offence, but you strike me as kind of thin-skinned. Even though you manage to make brilliant points at the last gasp. Example:

21 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

[...] but there's also a lot of less scientific theory in things like mainstream macroeconomics and the shallower theories of pop psychology.

Interesting... Care to develop on that one? It is your split thread after all.

54 minutes ago, studiot said:

You have elephants in your stores in Spain ?

We have bulls in ours.

Oh, I think you lot have many other things. But you are prime curators and antiquarians, so you can be trusted with them.  

[Lorentz Jr]

36 minutes ago, joigus said:

personality is not a program written on a blank slate by the environment, as you seem to have suggested. 

At a cognitive level, I would say it's pretty close. Most genetic traits control more concrete aspects of behavior.

36 minutes ago, joigus said:

No offence, but you strike me as kind of thin-skinned.

Maybe a bit combative. In my younger days, physics was almost a religion for me, so I have trouble sitting by and doing nothing when I see comments on a physics forum (or in mainstream research!) that seem absurd to me. This is a psychology thread, of course, but my sensitivity on this forum was activated a couple/few months ago.

And @iNow (a) distinguished himself in the Time Wasters thread by making more abusive comments than anyone else (in both quantity and harshness), and (b) has made a couple of similar comments since then. One critical comment may be constructive, but a pattern of abuse and weakly supported criticisms doesn't seem so constructive to me.

36 minutes ago, joigus said:

Interesting... Care to develop on that one? It is your split thread after all.

Financial markets are an interesting example. People bought stocks on ten-to-one margin in the late 1920s, and then in the early 1930s they wouldn't buy them at all with 14 percent dividend yields. Similar situations in the 1960s vs 1980, 2000 vs 2002-3, and 2007 vs 2009.

And I mentioned the Victorian culture. Many psychological ideas that originated then fell apart in the liberal 1970s because people didn't have all those tensions and repressions anymore.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Lorentz Jr

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

I said they have little or no initial state

and it was wrong that time, too. Our minds are not tabula rasa at birth. There’s quite a lot there already. 

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

At a cognitive level, I would say it's pretty close.

I disagree with this. For example, when it comes to memory, which is part of cognition. Or ability to learn foreign languages. 

I know that you were referring to beliefs, but they are only a small part of a cognitive level, I think.

Also, ability to change beliefs varies.

[Lorentz Jr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

For example, when it comes to memory, which is part of cognition.

How many memories do you think newborn babies have? I said I wasn't referring to aptitudes. Predicting a person's future actions requires knowing what specific memories the person has, not just how good they are at memorizing things.

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

Also, ability to change beliefs varies.

Yes, it decreases with age. That's what I said. It also varies between individuals, but I didn't say anything about that.

[joigus]

32 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

How many memories do you think newborn babies have?

None, obviously... or do they?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_memory

There's also such a thing as prenatal/perinatal stress, prenatal/perinatal imprinting, etc.

The fact that you can't conjure up the memory doesn't mean it's not there. We're made of atoms. It is to be expected, one would say.

And I'm just talking from googlesay...

[iNow]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

No offence, but you strike me as kind of thin-skinned.

You’re not alone in that. Also, used to being the smartest person in the room and struggling to adjust to the new room here. 

1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

How many memories do you think newborn babies have?

42. 

More specifically, from joigus’ link:

There are multiple techniques available not only to demonstrate the existence of fetal memory but to measure it.

[Lorentz Jr]

32 minutes ago, joigus said:

None, obviously... or do they?

What is "None, obviously..." supposed to mean? First you complain that I'm thin-skinned, and then you turn around and post what appears to be a straw-man argument. Is there something about "None, obviously..." that you think is relevant to this thread?

[joigus]

6 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

What is "None, obviously..." supposed to mean? First you complain that I'm thin-skinned, and then you turn around and post what appears to be a straw-man argument. Is there something about "None, obviously..." that you think is relevant to this thread?

It's more kind of like a fencing trick than an insult, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Arguing is a little bit like fencing. It's certainly not a strawman.

When a person takes something for granted, as if the previous statement had been totally absurd...

and then you go, "obviously you're right... No, hang on." And you deploy your next argument.

It's for greater effect in the arguing, not to insult you. I suggest you do the same: Be a good sport, fence back, smile, shake hands whether you "win" or "lose" --or think either you or your contestant have learnt anything from each other-- and you will make friends here. And what's more important, you will sharpen your own views, analytical tools, etc.

I've been wrong quite a number of times on these forums. I've always tried to be grateful, on some occasions by PM-ing the person and saying something along the lines of "I hope this message finds you well. Thank you for so elegantly pointing out my mistake."

Certainly not by sending a PM with nothing but <correction>blah</end of correction>. Without even a "Hi, pleased to meet you," and "blah" being a mispelled word, which is a false friend in my native language vs English.

Sound familiar?

I'm sorry. I'll wear my kid gloves next time.

 

[Lorentz Jr]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

It's more kind of like a fencing trick

I don't like fencing. Verbal fencing is for court trials, not science discussions.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

than an insult, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

It's an exaggeration, just like saying I called it an "insult" is an exaggeration and emphasizing "entirely" and "nothing" but not "more or less" or "almost" is an exaggeration.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Arguing is a little bit like fencing. It's certainly not a strawman.

I didn't say babies have no memories at all, I didn't say you insulted me, and I didn't say "entirely" or "nothing" without qualifiers. It's obviously a strawman.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

When a person takes something for granted, as if the previous statement had been totally absurd...

And that's the strawman, joigus. What you said was absurd, what I had said was not. So I really don't care what you call it. You call it fencing, I call it pamplinas.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

It's for greater effect in the arguing, not to insult you.

Because the implication you make is greater than what the person actually said. That's a strawman argument, and you're still doing it. You come up with this "I'm not insulting you" story as a way to pretend I was being unreasonable, but that's not what's happening. What's happening is that you're making up exaggerated stories about what I said and then criticizing me for seeing through them. That's not being thin-skinned, it's being perceptive.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I suggest you do the same: Be a good sport, fence back, smile, shake hands whether you "win" or "lose" --or think either you or your contestant have learnt anything from each other-- and you will make friends here. And what's more important, you will sharpen your own views, analytical tools, etc.

The only things I see being sharpened here are trolling and BSing skills. No thanks.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I've been wrong quite a number of times on these forums.

Someone here once told me I should get into experimental physics instead of theoretical. I prefer theory, and the same thing applies to my interest in psychology. I'm more interested in depth psychology than behavioral. But many people on this forum seem to think in terms of concrete behaviors. So I make a comment about the lack of genetic programming for higher-level cognitive phenomena like beliefs and attitudes (which I associate with geordief's "psychic space"), and people try to correct me for not mentioning the genetic programming of behaviors and aptitudes. I'm sure I'm wrong just as often as you are, but there are also a lot of communication problems (and one or two trouble-makers) that unnecessarily lead to arguments.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Certainly not by sending a PM with nothing but <correction>blah</end of correction>.

That's an interesting comment, joigus. Did my message bother you? I had no idea. It never even occurred to me. I corrected your wording because I wanted to help you with your English, and I did it privately because I didn't want to embarrass you.

So you call me thin-skinned, and yet you got upset because I wasn't polite enough or diplomatic enough for your tastes in a short message. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, joigus, but I think you're even more thin-skinned than I am. I apologize for apparently offending you.

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Lorentz Jr