|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Oct 21, 2009 20:39:10 GMT
This kind of goes to my idea that the identity is a created thing (by the mind and senses) and that for it to move beyon it's creator , the mind, makes little sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 21, 2009 20:46:28 GMT
I'm not entirely sure about that, Zee, honestly. How far our personality traits are natural and how far they are a product of our environment... I really don't know. We develop tendencies early, yes, but whether those tendencies would be completely different if we were raised in another climate, by other people, in another culture... We start taking in information far too swiftly for that to be certain, I'd say. And there's just no way to test it, of course...
Personality is so much a development of how we see ourselves. Which relies totally on the mirrors we are shown to see ourselves IN, metaphorically speaking...
I don't think I can even guess at that one. Annoyingly! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 21, 2009 20:49:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Oct 21, 2009 21:03:41 GMT
Well I very much agree with that post. My ideas about the invalidity of an afterlife can be well seated next to that line of thinking. I view the whole of "reality" to be based upon agreed upon perceptions and lesser individual perceptions. As with identity , the state of the world , our entire lives , to me , are all wrapped up in metaphor to be interpreted and ascribed meaning to. The possibilities are endless......... This is also why I view my opinions as only temporary , and as far as beliefs go , I can't say that any belief has ever had a meaning beyond what we , or I allow it to mean. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 21, 2009 21:08:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 22, 2009 7:39:22 GMT
And there's just no way to test it, of course... Twin studies is the usual way to test things like that. Not 100 % accurate but better than nothing. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Oct 22, 2009 9:23:45 GMT
I'm not so sure about that idea. For example , I contend that as of this moment , I did blow an ultrasonic dog whistle , If you did not hear it , well then how can it be proved /observed? in that case it's my word/perception of events against yours... |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 22, 2009 10:08:01 GMT
Ube - you can't do twin studies with the same person  *** Kilgore - you can set up instruments to measure, though. Not that it matters. Something that is Objective does not need to be observed - it just has to be true |
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Oct 22, 2009 10:34:35 GMT
And there's just no way to test it, of course... Twin studies is the usual way to test things like that. Not 100 % accurate but better than nothing. Übereil I was just coming here to write a huge post about twin studies! Haha. I love you, Ubie! I have this nagging feeling that we're going to keep ending up here, Ellzie! The things I have been saying are based on actual research; very fascinating research, in fact. Have you ever looked into twin studies? I get so excited thinking about them! There are studies on both fraternal and identical twins that grew up together or were reared apart, sometimes in very different cultural settings.. Oh, and they compare them to their biological parents verses adoptive and also to their adopted siblings. It is so interesting! The environment in which you are reared really has very modest effects on your personality. In fact, this is even true in other primates, such as macaque monkeys. Even people's varying divorce rates are estimated to be about 50% attributable to genetic factors! I'm obviously not saying that personality is all based on genetics, but you're really downplaying it's role. The way in which the environment responds to and affects you is dependent on the genetic traits you posses, some of which stay constant from your first weeks of life on. But, for instance, someone who is outgoing as a baby can become more so because of how the world interacts with them. Nurture works on what nature endows! The problem I have with your article should be fairly obvious by now - I completely disagree with the basis for it. Someone is still a human even if they're plopped down in the middle of a forest at very young age with no contact with the outside world. Even without all of the world's societal bull[Censored] we are human. I mean human in the most abstract sense - emotions, identity, etc. It isn't something forced into us. |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 22, 2009 11:30:26 GMT
However studies done on the few Mowgli and Feral children that have existed, suggest that a lack of social interaction at the right points does prevent the mental and social growth that a child needs, to the point that a child brought up by animals may never learn to walk upright, use a toilet, or other such things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 22, 2009 11:36:51 GMT
Zee - twins are still not the same person. For the rest, DPR has answered better than I |
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 22, 2009 11:56:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Oct 22, 2009 11:57:55 GMT
However studies done on the few Mowgli and Feral children that have existed, suggest that a lack of social interaction at the right points does prevent the mental and social growth that a child needs, to the point that a child brought up by animals may never learn to walk upright, use a toilet, or other such things. Oh, it definitely does affect a lot of things. For instance, the intelligence of a child like that would be almost entirely hereditary. It doesn't really change the fact that they are still very much human. Elliot, obviously they aren't the same exact person but they are much closer to it than anyone else. If it is a useful tool for behavior geneticists, it should be for you as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 22, 2009 12:08:25 GMT
For purposes of studying pure genetics, twin studies are invaluable, yes. For behaviour, less so. The margin of error may be smaller than for non-twins, but it is still there - and unmeasurable.
Ergo - less useful than you may think, Zee.
|
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Oct 22, 2009 12:29:51 GMT
That's really interesting.. and obviously incredibly disturbing. Hm, I don't want to give the impression that I don't realize the effect on children in these sorts of situations, I just don't believe it makes them any less human. Extremely severe cases of neglect or abuse are situations in which the home environment plays a major role in how the child turns out. I think I'm defining personality as different, possibly? Let me try again.. [Average, non-abusive] Parenting, for instance, does make a difference as it influences values, faith, politics, manners, and attitudes.. But those are different from the genetic personality traits. I think I might be explaining what I mean poorly? Let me know if that is the case. I tend to get stuck on very specific things and then people understand the things I say much differently than I intend. It really bothered me - "She was fragile and beautiful, but whatever makes a person human seemed somehow missing." What specifically do they mean by that? I don't understand how that is true. What do you see as being human? That's more specific to Flix.. I don't actually know if you can explain what the author meant by that, but I'm glomping onto you! Sorry. Elliot - They are still fairly vital. I don't see them as remotely perfect, just as important as they should be in this day and age where it is one of the best ways to understand the effects genetics have on personality traits that we currently have. I'm fully aware of the margin of error. You can still use studies to form your own ideas or back yourself up while realizing that there is a possibility (well, way more than just a possibility) that your base will be revised in the future. A twin study, even with its margin of error, still sheds more light on the actualities than your articles and you can't honestly say otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 22, 2009 12:52:09 GMT
Well, Zee, I honestly CAN say otherwise... What studies do is provide more in the way of absolute proof - and that is the thing I cannot deny. Shedding more light is a whole other thing...
Not that this article specifically was ever created to 'shed light' on anything. It's more intended to get the reader to ask themselves what it really means to be human - and how much of what we THINK it means is just stuff that we invent.
We are homo sapien by birth. But what we truly ARE is created in large part by the social & intellectual layers we have crafted over many generations. To be human is thus far more than merely to inherit a certain set of genetics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 22, 2009 13:13:37 GMT
That's what got me looking at feral children a while back |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 22, 2009 13:17:59 GMT
For purposes of studying pure genetics, twin studies are invaluable, yes. For behaviour, less so. The margin of error may be smaller than for non-twins, but it is still there - and unmeasurable. Ergo - less useful than you may think, Zee. When studying identical twins the genetic difference is 0 (i.e. they share the same dna...) This means that the only differences between them will be down to nurture. And yes they have mapped the whole gnome for a pair of identical twins and matched it. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 22, 2009 13:38:23 GMT
And yet even the most identical of twins, genetically, may become very different people. Fascinating, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 22, 2009 15:35:08 GMT
However there are usually a lot of similarities between them that cannot be accounted for through their upbringing.
|
|
