Genetics Almost Meaningless

[Coral Rhedd]

EVERYONE' date=' PLEASE, INSTEAD OF WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME, RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING. THIS IS THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD:

 

[b']We can continue the argument in a more precise manner. My main claim is not about single disorders like Huntington's etc; it is about the missing link in thinking about development and disorders. What follows is that genetics is unimportant in many cases that they are currently being emphasized, or even mentioned.

 

 

Yes, I get it. The "missing link" you would like to include in the "argument" that is ongoing not only in this thread but in society at large is too threatening to be considered because it challenges people parental, social, and political assumptions. Using pure logic as the grounds upon which to define and argue your position and rejecting all other approaches to understanding puts those other approaches to a distinct disadvantage.

 

And to think that, when you started this thread, I merely thought you were some kind of "nut."

 

The missing link is that 1-genetic contribution is greater in deficient environments. And so, we must take this under consideration. If a genetic contribution does not exist in a different, sufficient environment, usually in the form of a proactive environment, then the genetics are not important and the environment only should be the focus of improvement.

 

I read you as mostly defining a deficient environment as any environment that is not proactive. If this is so, then the question arises: Are you defining deficiency as any unmet need that the organism may have?

 

If we acknowledge this as true, then what we must create is an environment that is % effecient at meeting needs and thus responsive to the individual's illness in ways that I suggest we cannot yet understand.

 

If you are defining deficiency only as a lack of proper care and by this you meaning a lack of that emotional affinity that makes empathy and caring possible, then it is essential that you begin defining deficiency more specifically. Otherwise, intelligent discussion cannot proceed.

 

This means, depression, drug-abuse, and to a good extent (but perhaps not fully) disorders such as schizophrenia and autism (though I can't be certain about severe autism as of yet), should not be deemed genetic disorders. They do not exist in basically sufficient environments.

 

What would be a sufficient environment for an child that carried a gene for alcoholism?

 

1. Not being reared by parents who also carried that same gene and may, although they may not be alcoholics, have learned their familial behavior from their own alcoholic and thus behave like dry drunks? Should automatic adoption be required in such instances.

 

2. Never having access to alcohol? Should we outlaw liquor altogether? This type of solution seems not to have worked for drugs.

 

3. Provide treatment even prior to the manifestation of the disease.

 

2- heriditary estimates are flawed because the similarities they detect could be due to social forces such as imitation; furthermore, their assumptions are misleading and without evidence. One admitted assumption of these estimates are that each environment could be deficient. They simply have no way of finding out via their method.

 

The words "could be" in your above paragraph gives me visions of entering a maze from which we could never emerge. How then would one find out anything?

 

3- the child's negative temperment does not bring a negative reaction. That's a temporary correlation. The cause is the nature of the environment reacting to the child. A negative temperment can become a positive one in an informed environment. [/b]

 

To a large degree, I believe you are correct here. But are positive reactions enough to turn diseases like autism around or -- even more unlikely -- prevent them from emerging in the first place?

 

With respect,

Coral Rhedd

[Coral Rhedd]

Science has improved our understanding of certain disorders ' date='and placed defected genes as the [b']main[/b] causality and environment contributary.You should get help for your Narcissism its a genetic trait stop denying it.

 

I hope you are not saying here that the personality disorder, Narcissism, is a genetic disease. If so, please provide a source so that I may improve my understanding.

 

You have continually been evasive and sought only to confuse.By deliberately not involving myself with your drivel,hopefully to the others i have been coherent.

 

I don't see that Ramin is relying on science much. He is offering a broader argument and he is relying on logic.

 

About evasion: Newtonian, let me remind you that you did not answer my question to you about drug addiction. Perhaps you did not mean to evade but only forgot.

[Newtonian]

Coral i never answered because i never stated drug addiction,wasnt a disorder!.I mentioned drug abuse which is completely different.

It is well documented that drug addiction has strong genetic ties,and is often passed down generation to generation.I hope this answers your question.

 

 

Im sure Ramin will disagree.

[Coral Rhedd]

Coral i never answered because i never stated drug addiction' date='wasnt a disorder!.I mentioned drug abuse which is completely different.

It is well documented that drug addiction has strong genetic ties,and is often passed down generation to generation.I hope this answers your question.

 

 

Im sure Ramin will disagree.[/quote']

 

Okay. Thanks. I guess I misread your intention.

 

Now about the Narcissism . . . ?

[Newtonian]

Yes page 205 in my frontal lobe.

Bearing in mind Coral i was being sarcatic towards Ramin.The evidence or research is inconclusive thus far,although varying sources argue its genetic origin. I have managed to take a look for this

http://www.homestead.com/narcissism/

However also bear in mind although im logged in,im not always at my computer.Unfortunately people pay me for attending their building, and staying there for ages.

[Coral Rhedd]

Yes page 205 in my frontal lobe.

Bearing in mind Coral i was being sarcatic towards Ramin.The evidence or research is inconclusive thus far' date='although varying sources argue its genetic origin. I have managed to take a look for this

http://www.homestead.com/narcissism/

However also bear in mind although im logged in,im not always at my computer.Unfortunately people pay me for attending their building, and staying there for ages.[/quote']

 

Dreadfully sorry to hear about you brutal working conditions. Thanks for the link on Narcissism. However, I remain skeptical that it has any serious connection with genetics. Narcissists come in too many fascinating varieties. Why, some of my best friends . . .

[Newtonian]

I'd be skeptical as you say,to think that a deficient environment was the sole underlining cause also.

[john5746]

If narcissism is genetic, it should be very successful!

[Newtonian]

I believe there's a little narcissism in everyone.Dont you agree

[Coral Rhedd]

Newtonian, that's like saying there's a little schizophrenia in everyone. Narcissism is a brush you may tar someone with in debate because in has become part of are common culture. I see nothing in Ramin's arguments that indicate he suffers from narcissism.

 

Narcissism is a true mental health problem both for the people that suffer from it and for the people that know the people who suffer from it. You can take this to the bank: There are people in these forums who display narcissism. You just tarred the wrong guy.

 

You gave me a link on it. Rest assured, I have researched it a quite a bit before I ever received your link. I thank you for trying to educated us nonetheless.

[Coral Rhedd]

Here is an interesting link about Bipolar Disorder and severe childhood abuse. In fact, I have never known anyone with the disorder that over time, did not reveal significant abuse from his/her childhood.

 

http://www.rxpgnews.com/article_335.shtml

 

I hope this thread is not dead because I think it has points worth exploring and see no reason why they cannot be politely discussed.

 

Regards to all,

Coral