What do you think about Vygotsky?

[Daymare17]

Well? I've been looking into a few of his works. Do you think I should read more?

[Void]

Have you read Mind in Society?

[ramin]

Vygotsky is a window into reality (for some, "a different perspective"). The reason I say this is that he emphasizes potential and influences of society as opposed to boring and rigid genetic determinism. This opens the door of psychology and life to new arenas.

[Void]

Vygotsky is a window into reality (for some, "a different perspective"). The reason I say this is that he emphasizes potential and influences of society as opposed to boring and rigid genetic determinism. This opens the door of psychology and life to new arenas.

 

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?

[ramin]

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?

 

No one would deny the environment interacts with the brain. It is that the environment is the primary cause of behavior, while the brain is primarily the medium.

 

Vygotsky, and in some dark and disturbing manner even Freud, are the only known psychologists who acknowledge this accurately, with Vygotsky perhaps uncomparably better than Freud. This principle is a great way of explaining human psychology accurately, and thus reading Vygotsky is very rewarding. All that new psychology stuff, all over North America (and infiltrating into other places as well), that's just bogus material. What you have to realize is that the people in the top of psychology know this already. Some of them, like the former head of APA I believe (Sternberg) are able to counter this in some minor way. Others say that psychology highly simplifies, overgeneralizes, and presents phenomenon incompletely, but that is because it is the state of the science currently, still a little bit young, not realizing that they already can and eventually will have to make inferences outside of the science end of psychology, where abstract sequences of events and potential events take place. Which is the environment part of psychology (and thus not emphasized).

 

There are some hopes in reforming these aspects of psychology by use of a new cognitive systems approach called "situated cognition," in which arguments about the nature of information in the environment (and its processing) can be formally made.

[Void]

No one would deny the environment interacts with the brain. It is that the environment is the primary cause of behavior' date=' while the brain is primarily the medium.

 

Vygotsky, and in some dark and disturbing manner even Freud, are the only known psychologists who acknowledge this accurately, with Vygotsky perhaps uncomparably better than Freud. This principle is a great way of explaining human psychology accurately, and thus reading Vygotsky is very rewarding. All that new psychology stuff, all over North America (and infiltrating into other places as well), that's just bogus material. What you have to realize is that the people in the top of psychology know this already. Some of them, like the former head of APA I believe (Sternberg) are able to counter this in some minor way. Others say that psychology highly simplifies, overgeneralizes, and presents phenomenon incompletely, but that is because it is the state of the science currently, still a little bit young, not realizing that they already can and eventually will have to make inferences outside of the science end of psychology, where abstract sequences of events and potential events take place. Which is the environment part of psychology (and thus not emphasized).

 

There are some hopes in reforming these aspects of psychology by use of a new cognitive systems approach called "situated cognition," in which arguments about the nature of information in the environment (and its processing) can be formally made.[/quote']

 

First of all, what is "all this new psychology stuff"? Its difficult to follow your reasoning if your not complete.

 

Second, can you elaborate what you mean by "medium"? To say that the environment is the "primary" cause of behavior is rash and deterministic in its own right. Is this a revisit of behaviorism? The environment and our biology interact, and what emerges is behavior.

 

I sure don't udnerstand this "simplification & generalization" comments. Is that not what sciences does? Look at string theory, or the attempt to reduce everything down to one "formula". Is that not the ultimate simplification (as well as reductionism)? Does it not attempt to generalize to ALL phenomena?

 

I think your making blanket statements about psyhcology that are not exculsive to the science.

[ramin]

First of all' date=' what is "all this new psychology stuff"? Its difficult to follow your reasoning if your not complete.

 

Second, can you elaborate what you mean by "medium"? To say that the environment is the "primary" cause of behavior is rash and deterministic in its own right. Is this a revisit of behaviorism? The environment and our biology interact, and what emerges is behavior.

 

I sure don't udnerstand this "simplification & generalization" comments. Is that not what sciences does? Look at string theory, or the attempt to reduce everything down to one "formula". Is that not the ultimate simplification (as well as reductionism)? Does it not attempt to generalize to ALL phenomena?

 

I think your making blanket statements about psyhcology that are not exculsive to the science.[/quote']

 

I'm saying psychology right now holds and educates genetic determinism due to cultural conflicts, as opposed to potentialism and allowing many human (including psychological) and environmental problems to desist. You can easily see how this could happen, even accidently, when genetic determinism is inherently supportive of the status quo.

 

This is while the reality is that environments destruct human psychology as well as alleviate them.

 

By the way, I'm not too sure about behaviorism. Its more potentialism.

 

I sure don't udnerstand this "simplification & generalization" comments. Is that not what sciences does? Look at string theory, or the attempt to reduce everything down to one "formula". Is that not the ultimate simplification (as well as reductionism)? Does it not attempt to generalize to ALL phenomena?

 

Psychology admits to representing things inaccurately, attributed blindly to some 'state' of the "science," instead of to the fact that psychology will always be an art as well.

[Void]

I'm saying psychology right now holds and educates genetic determinism due to cultural conflicts, as opposed to potentialism and allowing many human (including psychological) and environmental problems to desist. You can easily see how this could happen, even accidently, when genetic determinism is inherently supportive of the status quo.

 

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.

 

 

Psychology admits to representing things inaccurately, attributed blindly to some 'state' of the "science," instead of to the fact that psychology will always be an art as well.

 

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!

[ramin]

You have it all wrong. Psychology' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

This is the exact crap I'm talking about in psychology. All of what you just said.

 

There is hardly such a thing as "gene-environment interaction," "bro." Psychology needs a whole new perspective. Those "twin studies" are ridden with un-taught assumptions and they are used without addressing these assumptions.

 

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.

So many diseases can be alleviated via a better responding culture, but as I said, this is understandably (but inappropriately) resisted due to its benefit to politicians. People have to walk politics out of it, but are so ingrained into this type of thinking enforced by government (through war and heavy policing) that they're not doing so.

 

If you don't get the argument (which you easily should), ask a question and/or reflect on it a little.

 

 

 

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!

 

You love playing the semantics. Incomplete and inaccurate are many of the times the same thing, though psychology is filled of trivial, incomplete, unestablished, biased and presumptuous stuff as well.

[Void]

"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.

[ramin]

"There is hardly such a thing as "gene-environment interaction' date='""

 

Why don't you read some contemporary literature in the field, and THEN we can have an intelligent conversation. [/quote']

 

Blah blah blah. Ok, make some assumptions of your own now. Gene-environment interaction literally and conceptually is overblown and even incoherent.

"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. "

 

 

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.

 

The science of the subject is inherently incomplete and thus inaccurate. Their analyses of gene-environment interaction are inaccurate, because they neglect uncountable assumptions in their analyses, such as the fact that genes are not etiologically important in deficient environments. Understanding genetics is great and beneficial, but genes do not "contribute" to many diseases, they are solely the medium, while the environment is the cause, in most cases.

 

The "science" doesn't know the role of its core findings and variables in the real world, and has dumb theories guiding it currently.

 

This reinforces, appallingly and unfoundedly via science, political and individual determinism and oppression.

[Void]

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?

[ramin]

Science will ALWAYS be incomplete.

 

The comparison of bio-chemistry's incompleteness, say, or even physics', is in a very different sense than that os psychology as a science. These analogies need some refinement, and I've already shown how psychology is much more an art than the other sciences in many ways.

 

"genes are not etiologically important in deficient environments"

 

In what sense are speaking of deficient?

 

A deficient environment is one that withholds basic necessities. In such circumstances, genes snowball into control and produce diseases. The taking control of genes due to a deficient environment is the main mechanism for mental disease, not the cause.

 

The development of what?

 

Mental illnesses, childhood, adult; pressures on other cultures, mental illness in other cultures; conflict; poverty; disease.

[Void]

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".

[ramin]

 

When you speak of basic neccesity' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

Uh-oh, you're about to hit a nerve on this one. Temperment is perhaps the most controversial and incomplete concept in psychology- not a good example. Observe:

Temprament is an infant's "personality" (for lack of a better word). It is largely a product of biology.

 

Why couldn't this be called the baby's initial state instead of 'temperment'?

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.

 

Try to refute this claim:

How the caregiver responds to the child has nothing to do with the child and is solely based on the caregiver's beliefs.

 

 

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.

 

This proves my point: temperment is only the initial state of the infant and the course of it is based on the caregiver's belief-system.

 

 

The point is, a fussy child does not HAVE to become a fussy adult, GIVEN an optimal environment.

 

Optimal? Why not minimal?

Genes largely lay the ground work for the ensuing environment. Some preparedness only makes sense for survival.

 

Genes, shmemes, how are they relevant to psychological outcome? They are the groundwork for highly plastic traits.

 

 

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.

 

Skeleton & flesh...I don't know. How about genes provide the biology while the environment shapes the psychology?

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.

 

You obviously are overinterpreting the data. The fact that many people with identical genes of a schizophrenic don't develop the problem shows that it depends on the environment. You can't say "no matter the environment" in any way.

 

The whole paradigm is clearly miseducating and even inaccurate and inhumane.

 

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.

 

Don't forget, genes are important in deficient environments: a contradictory claim for the importance of genes.

 

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".

 

I bet you anything schizophrenia does not and did not exist in all societies, due to their environment, and not genes. It is clear that this is possible as even in North America some environments don't allow the disorder to develop. And as you can see, absence of sch. in another society would not be due to genes because people from all types of places can get it.

[Void]

"Try to refute this claim:

How the caregiver responds to the child has nothing to do with the child and is solely based on the caregiver's beliefs."

 

Why should I have to? The behavior of any organism is MULTIDETERMINED, so beliefs obviously can factor in. How much so, is an empirical question.

 

"This proves my point: temperment is only the initial state of the infant and the course of it is based on the caregiver's belief-system."

 

This is incomplete. There are so many factors, where should I begin? Can I not assume the caregiver, especially a NEW caregiver, would nto change their beliefs based on actually having to care for a child? Does not the child's "intial state" or whatever you wanna call it, play a role? Your to unidirectional. This is obviously a bidirectional, even cyclical process.

 

"How about genes provide the biology while the environment shapes the psychology?"

 

To determined. Behaviorism revisited.

 

"You obviously are overinterpreting the data. The fact that many people with identical genes of a schizophrenic don't develop the problem shows that it depends on the environment. You can't say "no matter the environment" in any way."

 

So if schizo. is environmentally determined, then we can cure them right?

[ramin]

"Try to refute this claim:

How the caregiver responds to the child has nothing to do with the child and is solely based on the caregiver's beliefs."

 

Why should I have to?

 

Because you are claiming that it is not based solely on the caregiver's belief. Give an example of how anything else is part of it.

 

"This proves my point: temperment is only the initial state of the infant and the course of it is based on the caregiver's belief-system."

 

This is incomplete. There are so many factors' date=' where should I begin? Can I not assume the caregiver, especially a NEW caregiver, would nto change their beliefs based on actually having to care for a child? Does not the child's "intial state" or whatever you wanna call it, play a role? Your to unidirectional. This is obviously a bidirectional, even cyclical process.[/quote']

 

So you're saying that the baby's initial state is temperment, i.e. to certain extents permanent. Such a deterministic claim needs examples and precision, and that is what I am asking from you.

"How about genes provide the biology while the environment shapes the psychology?"

 

To determined. Behaviorism revisited.

 

Do you even know what behaviorism is? There's no need to categorize my claims. They are just claims. My claim is that the environment is the cause and detriment to health.

"You obviously are overinterpreting the data. The fact that many people with identical genes of a schizophrenic don't develop the problem shows that it depends on the environment. You can't say "no matter the environment" in any way."

 

So if schizo. is environmentally determined, then we can cure them right?

 

You mean we can prevent them right. Yes, it can be easily prevented via the environment, and this is clear even from the extreme "behavioural genetic" account.

[Void]

"Because you are claiming that it is not based solely on the caregiver's belief. Give an example of how anything else is part of it. "

 

That is exactly what I am saying. However, what do you mean by "it"? I can't give you an example when I do not know exactly what you are refering too.

 

"So you're saying that the baby's initial state is temperment, i.e. to certain extents permanent. Such a deterministic claim needs examples and precision, and that is what I am asking from you. "

 

I never said "permanent", so I don't feel I am being deterministic. I acknowledged that the environment, i.e. caregiver warmth, etc., can play a role in how that temperment develops into the child's personality. AGAIN...its a interaction between biology (temperment) and environment.

 

"Do you even know what behaviorism is? There's no need to categorize my claims. They are just claims. My claim is that the environment is the cause and detriment to health. "

 

Yes I do. In general, the theories initially held that the environment completely determines behavior. However, in the late 50's, early 60's, behaviorist psychologists found that certain animals learn somethings faster or slower, no matter what type of contingency was present. In addition, they found that there was just somethings that animals could not learn, because instinct was so intrenched within the organism's behavioral set, they could not be changed. FACE IT...to some degree, biology CONSTRAINS or LIMITS behavior.

 

I do not disagree that environment can be detrimental, BUT there are some gentically passed on diseases, such as hunington's chorea, that are soley determined by the genes. Biology matters too.

 

"You mean we can prevent them right. Yes, it can be easily prevented via the environment, and this is clear even from the extreme "behavioural genetic" account."

 

NO, I said CURE...So if someone has schizo, we can cure them...Maybe with some rewards and small ligthed disks?

[ramin]

"Because you are claiming that it is not based solely on the caregiver's belief. Give an example of how anything else is part of it. "

 

That is exactly what I am saying. However' date=' what do you mean by "it"? I can't give you an example when I do not know exactly what you are refering too.[/quote']

 

Development. How is anything but the caregiver's beliefs involved in developed? Genes become manifest the way the caregiver makes them become manifest.

"So you're saying that the baby's initial state is temperment, i.e. to certain extents permanent. Such a deterministic claim needs examples and precision, and that is what I am asking from you. "

 

I never said "permanent", so I don't feel I am being deterministic. I acknowledged that the environment, i.e. caregiver warmth, etc., can play a role in how that temperment develops into the child's personality. AGAIN...its a interaction between biology (temperment) and environment.

 

You have given absolutely no proof for that claim. First of all some level of permanency is implicit, and even explicit, in the definition of temperment. There is no basis for the concept except political and social determinism. Again, it is better explained as "the infant's initial state," implying potential for change as opposed to "its the way s/he is."

 

Looks like you are defending a bad religion...

 

"Do you even know what behaviorism is? There's no need to categorize my claims. They are just claims. My claim is that the environment is the cause and detriment to health. "

 

Yes I do. In general, the theories initially held that the environment completely determines behavior. However, in the late 50's, early 60's, behaviorist psychologists found that certain animals learn somethings faster or slower, no matter what type of contingency was present. In addition, they found that there was just somethings that animals could not learn, because instinct was so intrenched within the organism's behavioral set, they could not be changed. FACE IT...to some degree, biology CONSTRAINS or LIMITS behavior.

 

Are you expecting me to agree with someone that has absolutely no proof?

 

 

I do not disagree that environment can be detrimental, BUT there are some gentically passed on diseases, such as hunington's chorea, that are soley determined by the genes. Biology matters too.

 

Huntington's is a genetic disease and should not be brought into this topic: the genetic forum is far more appropriate. Non-genetic diseases occur via deficiency in the environment.

 

You have yet to bring up a case where "genes and environment" mutually cause a disease. There are arguably few of these, such as phenylketonia, but for the majority of DSM oppressions, there is no such thing. Don't forget to argue why genes are not the medium if you want to bring a case forward. Just a reminder that you have yet to give any examples to support your "genes & environment" mutuality theory.

 

 

"You mean we can prevent them right. Yes, it can be easily prevented via the environment, and this is clear even from the extreme "behavioural genetic" account."

 

NO, I said CURE...So if someone has schizo, we can cure them...Maybe with some rewards and small ligthed disks?

 

I don't know. I know that the enviornment can give them dignity, I'm not sure about curing ALL of them, but in many cases it will work. I'm focused on abolishment of causing diseases.

 

By the way, you asked that if they are environmentally determined, then they can be cured. That is non-sensical. The environment can badly damage the biological system to the point of no return, thus causing it but not curing it.

[Void]

"Development. How is anything but the caregiver's beliefs involved in developed? Genes become manifest the way the caregiver makes them become manifest."

 

Its obvious your not a student of development. A portion of development is maturation. The term maturation implies biological change. Language development is a classical example here.

 

"You have given absolutely no proof for that claim. First of all some level of permanency is implicit, and even explicit, in the definition of temperment. There is no basis for the concept except political and social determinism. Again, it is better explained as "the infant's initial state," implying potential for change as opposed to "its the way s/he is."

 

Looks like you are defending a bad religion... "

 

You obviuosly have some other agenda unrealted to SCIENCE. Studies with monkeys have shown that even monkeys have temprament. The experiment then proceeds to expose fussy monkeys to warm mothers (not biological). Those same monkeys, over time move toward the soothable monkey demeanor. HOWEVER, under conditions of stress, the monkey reverts back to its fussy state, indicating THAT, there be some residual "initial state" left. That does not sound permanent, nor fully plastic...Go figure?

 

In addition, drop the moral and religious comments. We are having a scientific conservation, no?

 

"Are you expecting me to agree with someone that has absolutely no proof?"

 

The behaviorist accounts need no proof, they are common knowledge for those within the science. Just read it.

 

As far as biology constraining behavior...

 

Can you fly? Breath underwater? Live beyond 200 years old? Can you sense electro-magnetic pulses?

 

...Oh yea, without technology

 

"Huntington's is a genetic disease and should not be brought into this topic: the genetic forum is far more appropriate. Non-genetic diseases occur via deficiency in the environment.

 

You have yet to bring up a case where "genes and environment" mutually cause a disease. There are arguably few of these, such as phenylketonia, but for the majority of DSM oppressions, there is no such thing. Don't forget to argue why genes are not the medium if you want to bring a case forward. Just a reminder that you have yet to give any examples to support your "genes & environment" mutuality theory."

 

Context is important here. You are making statements, and not defining what context they refer too...

 

Are we talking about disease in general? Mental disease?

 

 

"I don't know. I know that the enviornment can give them dignity, I'm not sure about curing ALL of them, but in many cases it will work. I'm focused on abolishment of causing diseases."

 

Dignity. That is a moral issue, take it to the philosophy forum.

 

"By the way, you asked that if they are environmentally determined, then they can be cured. That is non-sensical. The environment can badly damage the biological system to the point of no return, thus causing it but not curing it."

 

Yea, and biology can also DEFEND against the environment, such as those with sickle cell trait, which is the genetic condition selected for in regions of endemic malaria. They are more resistant to malaria.

[Void]

An example if gene/environment interaction....Oh yea, we call those phenotypes, right?

[ramin]

"Development. How is anything but the caregiver's beliefs involved in development? Genes become manifest the way the caregiver makes them become manifest."

 

Its obvious your not a student of development. A portion of development is maturation. The term maturation implies biological change. Language development is a classical example here.

 

Hold on. I though we were talking about behavior? Is this the psychology forum? I swear I thought it was. Oh' date=' hold on, it is! And, when we've been talking about genes thus far, as seen throughout the post, we are talking about behavioral genetics, not basic maturation.

 

So I'll make my question more clear:

 

[b']How is anything but the caregiver's beliefs involved in the development of behavioral disorders and manifestation, given that these manifestations are not fully genetic disorders such as Huntington's Disease?[/b]

 

Its obvious your not a student of development.

 

You'd be surprised.

 

And you're in rhetoric?

"You have given absolutely no proof for that claim. First of all some level of permanency is implicit, and even explicit, in the definition of temperment. There is no basis for the concept except political and social determinism. Again, it is better explained as "the infant's initial state," implying potential for change as opposed to "its the way s/he is."

 

Looks like you are defending a bad religion... "

 

You obviuosly have some other agenda unrealted to SCIENCE. Studies with monkeys have shown that even monkeys have temprament. The experiment then proceeds to expose fussy monkeys to warm mothers (not biological). Those same monkeys, over time move toward the soothable monkey demeanor. HOWEVER, under conditions of stress, the monkey reverts back to its fussy state, indicating THAT, there be some residual "initial state" left. That does not sound permanent, nor fully plastic...Go figure?

 

In addition, drop the moral and religious comments. We are having a scientific conservation, no?

 

The concept of temperment is unfounded, yet everyone goes along with it. That sounds like a bad religion. For instance, the most evidence you've provided to ground the term "temperment" in humans, is evidence in primates and in primate environments! As if there are not millions of years of difference, in environment and biology involved! LOL...

 

Is this a joke?

 

 

 

"Huntington's is a genetic disease and should not be brought into this topic: the genetic forum is far more appropriate. Non-genetic diseases occur via deficiency in the environment.

 

You have yet to bring up a case where "genes and environment" mutually cause a disease. There are arguably few of these, such as phenylketonia, but for the majority of DSM oppressions, there is no such thing. Don't forget to argue why genes are not the medium if you want to bring a case forward. Just a reminder that you have yet to give any examples to support your "genes & environment" mutuality theory."

 

Context is important here. You are making statements, and not defining what context they refer too...

 

Are we talking about disease in general? Mental disease?

 

The point is that we were talking about "gene-environment" interactions, and you brought up Huntington's Disease. Quite tangential.

 

"I don't know. I know that the enviornment can give them dignity, I'm not sure about curing ALL of them, but in many cases it will work. I'm focused on abolishment of causing diseases."

 

Dignity. That is a moral issue, take it to the philosophy forum.

 

Off topic, and you don't think dignity has anything to do with psychology?

 

 

 

"By the way, you asked that if they are environmentally determined, then they can be cured. That is non-sensical. The environment can badly damage the biological system to the point of no return, thus causing it but not curing it."

 

Yea, and biology can also DEFEND against the environment, such as those with sickle cell trait, which is the genetic condition selected for in regions of endemic malaria. They are more resistant to malaria.

 

Sure, and we can make the environment so bad that only 10% of people don't develop mental disorders, then say it is "genetic." LOL....

 

What you have to realize is that society is the manipulation of the environment. Environments can withhold basic necessities that they are capable of providing. Not doing so is not a genetic matter. Or do you think if kids are isolated and not cared for, their "genetics" become important?

 

The science you're using is incomplete for psychology. The way you treat psychology is that if something goes wrong, even if it involves irrational beliefs and actions in the environment, it is genetic, even partly. That's reductionism. Perhaps a more holistic approach to psychology is more whole?

 

Again, you've provided no explanation for this "temperment" phenomenon and why is shouldn't be "the child's initial state" except for an invalid analogy with primates (invalid because of enormous differences in their biological and environmental abilities). I think in fact, you reduced the human environment's role to primate life!

 

Second, you've given no example of this eerie "gene-environment" interaction pertaining to the majority of psychology disorders.

[ramin]

I'm sorry to laugh so much Void. Its just that you pretend to know more than me, but then give me absurd responses.

[ramin]

An example if gene/environment interaction....Oh yea, we call those phenotypes, right?

 

Phenotype? You've got the wrong concept. That's supposed to be fully genetic. They say phenotype-environment interaction.