Genetics Almost Meaningless

[Newtonian]

Ramin let me enlighten you;you are stating that disorders such as Autism are due to Environmental defiency .BULLSHIT

Autism knows no racial, ethnic, or social boundaries,family income, lifestyle, and education do not affect the chance or occurrence of autism.There are actually 5 categories to the disorder .Which in this conversation i need not name.

Autism is caused by abnormality in the brain,this shows up on scans between autistic,non-autistic.Whilst presently nobody can pin down what triggers it,accumulated scientific evidence points to it being hereditory,genetic and medical(which i presume is your false assumption of environment..more later)

The main theory is that groups of defective genes inhibit the development of normal brain structure.Scientists are currently searching for these irregular segments in the genetic code of autistic persons.I wont go further into details because of the "fright syndrome" you speak of.

The 'environment difficiency'which you speak of is not valid.Because the only factors in environment that could contribute or lead to the disorder.Are either during pregnancy ingesting toxic substances(no real supporting evidence for this) which interfere with fetal development,viral infection.Or viral infection shortly after birth,phenylketonuria,TS,CRS etc.

Unless your clasifying viral infection as an environment defficiency,your completely seeking to mislead everyone with groundless claims.

Read please There is no evidence whatsoever for Autism being caused by neglect,lack of affection,lack of education in infancy,social interaction,cold,hunger,climate or continent of birth.

Please let me know if you disagree,i look forwrd to reading your rebuttal.

[Newtonian]

Two things: -

 

• You are over simplifying the case. Genes do influence some aspects of psychology' date=' and enviroment influences by a much more acute degree. You cannot ignore one in favour of the other.
  [*']Where did you get your degree?
  

Tiny dont waste your time with it,Genes influence the individuals period.

I think all he is harping on about is depression.We'll all need prozac by the time his finished.

[Sayonara]

This thread is a farce.

[Coral Rhedd]

Hi Ramin,

 

I actually went to the site you suggested (it took forever to load) and all I could really see that it was saying was that human development was influenced by the child's genetics, the child's influence upon the environment and the environment's influence upon the child. They seemed to be discussing normal development and not disorders and in no way did they seem to be giving enormous weight to the power of environment.

 

If we look closely at the DSM (Dianostic and Statistical Manual) it becomes obvious that most of us could find a niche in it -- especially if we look at those diagnoses followed by the term nonspecific. For instance, although my daughter has not been diagnosed, I suspect she may have Aspergers or a Nonverbal Learning Disorder.

 

It is interesting that you say enviromental factors figure largely in Autism. Please understand that when you say this many parents of Autistic children are frustrated with this thinking because it was not so long ago that we emerged from a twilight zone where they were baffled at being blamed for their child's disorder. I hope if you continue to argue your thesis using Autism as an example that you will find sites with more comprehensive information than the one you have provided. Maybe you could look for a study that has been peer reviewed.

 

Regards,

Coral

[rakuenso]

You think psychology and society are unrelated? Now that's just basic! Please' date=' don't be afraid to integrate related domains of life. Biological determinism categorically emphasizes determinism and has an effect on how we view and act no the world. Critical thought, on the other hand, will show that biological determinism is oppressive to all humans, period, and can have a positive effect to life. Wasn't that simple?

 

Also, the argument used by your friend was trying to draw an anology between snake genetics and human genetics without looking at how humans manipulate their own environment. You should have noticed that... I was criticizing the argument s/he made, not the use of animals in the argument. Comon now...[/quote']

 

 

I'm saying that politics has very little impact on most of the major pyschological disorders. Once again I will exemplify Huntington's Disease, it exists in almost every single country INDEPENDENT of politics and social factors. What does it matter if humans manipulate the environment? The factors would still affect snakes and humans nevertheless

[rakuenso]

Two things: -

 

• You are over simplifying the case. Genes do influence some aspects of psychology' date=' and enviroment influences by a much more acute degree. You cannot ignore one in favour of the other.
  [*']Where did you get your degree?
  

 

 

I think he got his degree from a creationist college.... else there is no way someone can be so oblivious towards the role of genetics in neurosciences

[rakuenso]

I guess you're escaping my words out of fright. What else would explain misinterpreting a clear argument and avoiding it? Tell me' date=' is the construction of a deterministic ideology, as I've clearly argued to be the case in thinking about psychology, a "pointless" discussion, or [i']important[/i]? No, I'm not worthy of your avoidance.

 

THE ARGUMENT IS: genes are not important for the majority of psychological problems and analyses, not that they don't play a "role." They provide a starting template when the child enters the world. If the environment is deficient or uncaring, this template will not develop into a happy and well-functioning organism.

 

I've stressed that this applies to *most* disorders repeatedly, again an indication that you are avoiding the argument.

 

The current paradigm of nature-nurture interaction leaves out the variability in the environment that contributes to development! If you are able to reason, you will notice that this is a stupid, oppressive, paradigm.

 

If you are going to respond, understand the argument. It will be worth it. Also give an intelligent response. Time does not grow on trees.

 

Again I will cite Huntington's, the cause of it has been isolated to repeats of the nucleotide sequence CAG. (http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/huntington_disease.jsp)

A person is either born with or without Huntington's. There is absolutely no environmental factor that triggers it. The more CAG repeats there are the earlier it will start to show its signs. Thus is my argument: A person with Huntington can be born in a perfectly clean environment yet still develop Huntington's BECAUSE it was predetermined by his/her genes the day they were born.

 

And as for the nature-nuture paradigm, the nuture part specifically refers to the environmental factors along with societal biotic factors.

[rakuenso]

What this thread has proved is that it should be mandatory for psychology enthusiasts to take courses in basic philosophy.

 

 

Now your really starting to make me mad, WHAT THE !@#$ does philosophy have anything to do with this?

[rakuenso]

Also I'm still not clear as to what you mean by environment, environment as in Social Hiearchy as a whole or environment in general? (trees, grass, cows, moo.)

 

holy crap you made me post 5 times in a row.

[ramin]

I'm saying that politics has very little impact on most of the major pyschological disorders. Once again I will exemplify Huntington's Disease, it exists in almost every single country INDEPENDENT of politics and social factors. What does it matter if humans manipulate the environment? The factors would still affect snakes and humans nevertheless

 

 

Please don't post to me anymore. I emphasized several times there are exceptions.

[ramin]

Now your really starting to make me mad, WHAT THE !@#$ does philosophy have anything to do with this?

 

 

Its that you have to understand logic to understand my argument. How many philosophy courses have you taken?

[ramin]

Also I'm still not clear as to what you mean by environment' date=' environment as in Social Hiearchy as a whole or environment in general? (trees, grass, cows, moo.)

 

holy crap you made me post 5 times in a row.[/quote']

 

 

The environment of the child is what exists and does not exist external to the child.

[ramin]

Again I will cite Huntington's' date=' the cause of it has been isolated to repeats of the nucleotide sequence CAG. (http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/huntington_disease.jsp)

A person is either born with or without Huntington's. There is absolutely no environmental factor that triggers it. The more CAG repeats there are the earlier it will start to show its signs. Thus is my argument: A person with Huntington can be born in a perfectly clean environment yet still develop Huntington's BECAUSE it was predetermined by his/her genes the day they were born. [/quote']

And as for the nature-nuture paradigm, the nuture part specifically refers to the environmental factors along with societal biotic factors.

 

 

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.

[rakuenso]

This thread is a farce.

 

agreed. I give up on this topic....

[ramin]

Hi Ramin' date='

 

I actually went to the site you suggested (it took forever to load) and all I could really see that it was saying was that human development was influenced by the child's genetics, the child's influence upon the environment and the environment's influence upon the child. They seemed to be discussing normal development and not disorders and in no way did they seem to be giving enormous weight to the power of environment.

 

If we look closely at the DSM (Dianostic and Statistical Manual) it becomes obvious that most of us could find a niche in it -- especially if we look at those diagnoses followed by the term nonspecific. For instance, although my daughter has not been diagnosed, I suspect she may have Aspergers or a Nonverbal Learning Disorder.

 

It is interesting that you say enviromental factors figure largely in Autism. Please understand that when you say this many parents of Autistic children are frustrated with this thinking because it was not so long ago that we emerged from a twilight zone where they were baffled at being blamed for their child's disorder. I hope if you continue to argue your thesis using Autism as an example that you will find sites with more comprehensive information than the one you have provided. Maybe you could look for a study that has been peer reviewed.

 

Regards,

Coral[/quote']

 

 

That's too bad Coral. It is sad that you go against my claim about autism without having any holistic scientific knowledge of it.

 

About the paradigm: it says the environment depends on the child's temperment, while environments are radically different with each other intrinsically. Furthermore, it equalizes the environment with the parent's phenotype. That is simplistic and horrible in terms of paradigm. You should be able to see this problem. If you choose not to, you're missing out on more holistic knowledge, a much more complete perspective.

[Coral Rhedd]

Think I am going to go take something strong. Like a Celebrex and a cup of tea.

[ramin]

This thread is a farce.

 

Sayanara

[ramin]

Two things: -

 

• You are over simplifying the case. Genes do influence some aspects of psychology' date=' and enviroment influences by a much more acute degree. You cannot ignore one in favour of the other.
  [*']Where did you get your degree?
  

 

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.

[ramin]

Ramin let me enlighten you;you are stating that disorders such as Autism are due to Environmental defiency .BULLSHIT

Autism knows no racial' date=' ethnic, or social boundaries,family income, lifestyle, and education do not affect the chance or occurrence of autism.There are actually 5 categories to the disorder .Which in this conversation i need not name.

Autism is caused by abnormality in the brain,this shows up on scans between autistic,non-autistic.Whilst presently nobody can pin down what triggers it,accumulated scientific evidence points to it being hereditory,genetic and medical(which i presume is your false assumption of environment..more later)

The main theory is that groups of defective genes inhibit the development of normal brain structure.Scientists are currently searching for these irregular segments in the genetic code of autistic persons.I wont go further into details because of the "fright syndrome" you speak of.

The 'environment difficiency'which you speak of is not valid.Because the only factors in environment that could contribute or lead to the disorder.Are either during pregnancy ingesting toxic substances(no real supporting evidence for this) which interfere with fetal development,viral infection.Or viral infection shortly after birth,phenylketonuria,TS,CRS etc.

Unless your clasifying viral infection as an environment defficiency,your completely seeking to mislead everyone with groundless claims.

Read please There is no evidence whatsoever for Autism being caused by neglect,lack of affection,lack of education in infancy,social interaction,cold,hunger,climate or continent of birth.

Please let me know if you disagree,i look forwrd to reading your rebuttal.[/quote']

 

Just because you say its not environmental it certainly doesn't make it not environmental. Genes are irrelevant when an environmental deficiency exists. They can find the genes to be the cause for any disorder in a deficient environment. For example, person X has a certain phenotype at birth. Have you ever heard of experiential expectant biology? Generally, certain environmental things have to exist for certain biological structures to develop. So, indeed, my genes led me to a disorder, but person X's has not, because we were exposed to the same environment. But both environments could be deficient, not providing the stimulation needed for only one of us to develop incorrectly. So who cares about genes in this case? Do you?

[ramin]

Two things: -

 

• You are over simplifying the case. Genes do influence some aspects of psychology' date=' and enviroment influences by a much more acute degree. You cannot ignore one in favour of the other.
  [*']Where did you get your degree?
  

 

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.

[ramin]

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.

[Sayonara]

Sayanara

If you were intending to say "goodbye", then (a) you really ought to have spelled it correctly, and (b) you might want to think about it a little.

[AzurePhoenix]

okay, if genes have nothing to do with psych, then theoretically, a dog raised under human conditions should be human in psychiatric terms, though certainly limited in its intelligence by anatomical brain capacity. Hmmm, as far as I know, that's not true. Are each of us born with a sort of blueprint of instincts that define us as humans, and dogs as dogs.

 

In humans and other higher intellects (dolphins, ravens, chimps, parrots, pigs, dogs, and even cats) clear personalitites are evident, but in most cases are purely based on the inborn personality of the species in question, no matter how it was raised (there are some exceptions in which the pet takes on the traits of the species that raised it, but indeed, there are some dogs that act more human even when raised in a pro-canine atmosphere)

 

it seems that this would imply there was a key genetic element to at least the base of the critter psyche. Simply because humans are more advanced, that just means there are more details to further personalize on, right? If that's so, should it be so hard to believe that many or most or even all of the details that define a particular person are in some part persuaded if not fully dictated by an instinctual (thus genetic) blueprint?

 

Just a thought

[Phi for All]

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.

I think this thread needs to be moved to the "Only Post IF You Agree With Me" Forum, which I'm advising Administration we create immediately.

[Coral Rhedd]

New York Times online has this article on autism:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/health/08brai.html

 

It does little to suggest evironmental causes for autism. It seems to me that there is a tacit acknowledgement of genetic causes.