What makes us who we are?

[RickWhite]

For years a debate has raged regarding whether we are who we are based on genetics or on what we learn from our environment from the time of birth. "Nature Vs nurture" is the popular reference.

Regardless of which influences us more, it is clear that environment plays a significant roll.

So, I am wondering - do you believe that such matters enter into politics?

More specifically, do you consider the effect that different environments and experiences will have on us as individuals and as a society? And, do you consider how different policies might influence people's environment and therefore their behavior?

For instance, when considering Government subsidized living, do you consider the psychological impact this has on people and how this actually influences people's choices, attitudes and incentives?

When considering the importance of a traditional family, do you consider the vast differences in the way a child relates to their mother vs their father and how the child learns vastly different things from each?

Whenever I consider any issue, these are the things I think about. When I hear about Government subsidizing people's existence I naturally consider the harm this causes to our collective sense of incentive - not to mention what this does to the self esteem of the individual.

When I hear talk of "alternative" family structures I naturally think back to my nurturing mother who influenced me in ways only a woman can and my father who kept me in line and taught me that which a son can only learn from a father.

Given the conversations I have had with many in this forum, i just wonder if these are things that everyone considers or only a handful of us.

 

[figtree]

who we are is attributed to many factors, it has to do with nature and nurture..... not one or the other. our brains are wired to take in and assimilate information, how it is assimilated varies according to how your brain functions versus anothers brain function. thinking about it this way opens up the thought from "either or" to it being both, nature and nurture. your genetics determine how your brain takes in info (nature), how your thought process turns the info into something you can use and understand has to do with personal experiences (nurture). this is one of the reasons our minds are able to be dynamic, our thoughts can change due to more information injected in, or by lack of information or mis information (fox news, msnbc). if your not dynamic in your reasoning your not using your full mental potential, your locked into a certain mindset, can not think "outside the box".

you speak of alternative family........ i know of no such thing. family is family, what could be alternative about it? the father staying home due to no work? the mother having to work because the father is laid off? the roles reversed.....stay at home dad?
OR are you implying something about gay marriage?

Government subsidising existence? are you talking about unemployment insurance? social security? medicare? welfare?

 

[Illegal Smile]

All you need to answer this question is a look at the damage government programs have had on the black community the last 50-60 years.

 

[PadawanBater]

For years a debate has raged regarding whether we are who we are based on genetics or on what we learn from our environment from the time of birth. "Nature Vs nurture" is the popular reference.

Regardless of which influences us more, it is clear that environment plays a significant roll.

So, I am wondering - do you believe that such matters enter into politics?

More specifically, do you consider the effect that different environments and experiences will have on us as individuals and as a society? And, do you consider how different policies might influence people's environment and therefore their behavior?

For instance, when considering Government subsidized living, do you consider the psychological impact this has on people and how this actually influences people's choices, attitudes and incentives?

When considering the importance of a traditional family, do you consider the vast differences in the way a child relates to their mother vs their father and how the child learns vastly different things from each?

Whenever I consider any issue, these are the things I think about. When I hear about Government subsidizing people's existence I naturally consider the harm this causes to our collective sense of incentive - not to mention what this does to the self esteem of the individual.

When I hear talk of "alternative" family structures I naturally think back to my nurturing mother who influenced me in ways only a woman can and my father who kept me in line and taught me that which a son can only learn from a father.

Given the conversations I have had with many in this forum, i just wonder if these are things that everyone considers or only a handful of us.

It's a mixture of both; Nurture compliments what nature gave us.

Regarding the gov. subsidized living, people do what they think is the best available option. The consequences of it are a lot harder to see, so a lot of people miss them and only see the benefit, if any at all, which is again, only human nature. People want to see the good and forget about the bad. That's where science should come in and play the most important part. Scientists are capable of determining these things... which they've done. But the problem is... half the population doesn't believe science is accurate, can be trusted, or what the hell "science" even means.

When it suits em, hey, science works! When it doesn't, they throw it out the window.

Think about it, how easy it would be to answer this question. Is gov. subsidized living good?

So ask yourself why this is... Why don't a lot of people here in America believe science is accurate, trustworthy or reliable?...

Hmmm... what could the answer be...


"When I hear talk of "alternative" family structures I naturally think back to my nurturing mother who influenced me in ways only a woman can and my father who kept me in line and taught me that which a son can only learn from a father."

This is a delusion. I challenge you to cite one example.

 

[jesus of Cannabis]

This guy has all the answers and has a good message in this speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

 

[PadawanBater]

This guy has all the answers and has a good message in this speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

I love that speech!

ftw!

 

[NoDrama]

Im a cynic. My belief is that 90% of what people do is motivated by selfish reasons.

 

[medicineman]

As popeye said: "I yam what I yam". Trying to figure out what makes people tick will drive one insane. How many shrinks commit suicide?? Many I'm told. The upbringing has a direct and lasting influence on people, I have been schooled in psych. classes to believe it is a mixture of environment and DNA. No-one really knows the ratio, and I'm sure it varies by individual. So it is an entirely unanswerable question.

 

[RickWhite]

Interesting. It appears a few people are having a hard time with this.

Here is a pointer. In general, a piece such as the one above contains one major claim and one or more examples, analogies and sub-claims designed to support the major premise. Often there are some other points of clarification. As the reader, your first task is to identify the main claim and then look for support of the claim.

In the piece above, the main claim is the question of whether or not one should consider the psychological impact that different policies can have on people. The question of nature vs nurture is not relevant and was only mentioned to isolate the nurture aspect for purpose of discussion. The examples I used, Government subsidized living and the importance of both male and female influence to the growth of a child, are not the subject of the post. These are only examples used to illustrate the main claim.

Perhaps some of you would like to give it another shot. Go back and try to identify the main claim (I told you what it is) and think about it for a while. Then, see if you can link how certain policies might create conditions that affect people and in what way they do so. If you get that far, pick a given policy and try to articulate how you think such a policy impacts people's conduct or perception. Or, if you don't think this occurs, you can try to make a case for that position.

I am guessing that people on the right are generally more concerned with how policies impact our conduct and the outcome this produces and people on the left are more concerned with ensuring economic and social equality and the outcome this produces. The Left views Government subsidized living in terms of meeting basic needs and economic fairness. The Right views it as a motivation and ambition crusher and a breeder of poverty and despair.

Do you consider the psychological effect of our policies? Give an example.

 

[Osoheil]

For years a debate has raged regarding whether we are who we are based on genetics or on what we learn from our environment from the time of birth. "Nature Vs nurture" is the popular reference.

Regardless of which influences us more, it is clear that environment plays a significant roll.

So, I am wondering - do you believe that such matters enter into politics?

More specifically, do you consider the effect that different environments and experiences will have on us as individuals and as a society? And, do you consider how different policies might influence people's environment and therefore their behavior?

For instance, when considering Government subsidized living, do you consider the psychological impact this has on people and how this actually influences people's choices, attitudes and incentives?

When considering the importance of a traditional family, do you consider the vast differences in the way a child relates to their mother vs their father and how the child learns vastly different things from each?

Whenever I consider any issue, these are the things I think about. When I hear about Government subsidizing people's existence I naturally consider the harm this causes to our collective sense of incentive - not to mention what this does to the self esteem of the individual.

When I hear talk of "alternative" family structures I naturally think back to my nurturing mother who influenced me in ways only a woman can and my father who kept me in line and taught me that which a son can only learn from a father.

Given the conversations I have had with many in this forum, i just wonder if these are things that everyone considers or only a handful of us.

Before I can fully discuss your post, you need to give examples of these things that a person can "only learn from a father or mother". Your post seems to assume that the single man/woman family is the only suitable structure that a child can learn good lessons from.


Of course these matters enter into politics. Of course people consider these types of things. Bad decisions are made and are perpetuated at times, as it is human nature to be fallible and humans made these decisions. Does that mean they are forgivable mistakes? That is up to a individual to decide.



Why consider the harm that such subsidization may cause, and not the good?


When I hear "traditional" I think of something done over and over again for no good reason other than to perpetuate tradition. Traditional does not = good or bad of its own accord.



"Well, this is the "traditional" way to raise children, so it must be the only way that raises "proper" children."

 

[Osoheil]

Interesting. It appears a few people are having a hard time with this.

Here is a pointer. In general, a piece such as the one above contains one major claim and one or more examples, analogies and sub-claims designed to support the major premise. Often there are some other points of clarification. As the reader, your first task is to identify the main claim and then look for support of the claim.

In the piece above, the main claim is the question of whether or not one should consider the psychological impact that different policies can have on people. The question of nature vs nurture is not relevant and was only mentioned to isolate the nurture aspect for purpose of discussion. The examples I used, Government subsidized living and the importance of both male and female influence to the growth of a child, are not the subject of the post. These are only examples used to illustrate the main claim.

Perhaps some of you would like to give it another shot. Go back and try to identify the main claim (I told you what it is) and think about it for a while. Then, see if you can link how certain policies might create conditions that affect people and in what way they do so. If you get that far, pick a given policy and try to articulate how you think such a policy impacts people's conduct or perception. Or, if you don't think this occurs, you can try to make a case for that position.

So, because someone takes issue with an example you gave to support your main point, what they say is irrelevant because it does not pertain to the main point? This is inane. No matter how much pseudo-intellectual garbage you spew it does not make -any- of your points or examples less challenge-able. To make a sound argument all of the arguments should be sound.

 

[rezo]

i believe it to be simple. we survive by our basic instincts and everything else is taught. stephen hawkings wasnt a genius until he read a book lebron james wasnt an athlete until he picked up a basketball. its a two part cocktail. genetics only gets you so far before influence kicks in.

 

[figtree]

Oops pushed the wrong button, oh well. dont want to rewrite the whole thing so..............I'm sending it out via ESP.

Take that!

 

[RickWhite]

So, because someone takes issue with an example you gave to support your main point, what they say is irrelevant because it does not pertain to the main point? This is inane. No matter how much pseudo-intellectual garbage you spew it does not make -any- of your points or examples less challenge-able. To make a sound argument all of the arguments should be sound.

The examples I gave serve only to illustrate the main point of the thread, which in this case is a question.

I could have mentioned the roll of social proof in contributing to inner city delinquency or any number of things.

You are assuming these examples are sub-claims used to buttress an argument - they are not. They are illustrations that I included to help clarify an abstract concept.

You asked about providing examples of how a child learns different things and receives different input from a mother and a father.

If you need examples, the correct answer to my question is no. You do not spend much if any time thinking about the psychological aspect of issues. Anyone who spent any time contemplating human behavior and the human condition already knows that there are monumental differences in what a child learns from each parent.

Now I know, you want to see studies right? Well, guess what, not everything requires a study and studies can not take the place of wisdom. Especially, when studies, for quite some time have been restricted to only those that support the Liberal agenda. The few Conservative or even objective professors out there know full well that producing any study that goes against the principles of Liberalism will end their career. Nope, unfortunately we can no longer count on academia for much of value these days. another casualty of the Liberal agenda.

At any rate, i don't want to get off on a tangent so I'll just put you down as a no.

 

[PadawanBater]

You asked about providing examples of how a child learns different things and receives different input from a mother and a father.

If you need examples, the correct answer to my question is no. You do not spend much if any time thinking about the psychological aspect of issues. Anyone who spent any time contemplating human behavior and the human condition already knows that there are monumental differences in what a child learns from each parent.

Yet you can't point them out. Not even one. Those differences must be "monumental" alright...

Now I know, you want to see studies right? Well, guess what, not everything requires a study and studies can not take the place of wisdom. Especially, when studies, for quite some time have been restricted to only those that support the Liberal agenda. The few Conservative or even objective professors out there know full well that producing any study that goes against the principles of Liberalism will end their career. Nope, unfortunately we can no longer count on academia for much of value these days. another casualty of the Liberal agenda.

You are one crazy dude Rick.

I don't believe for one second you're not a religious person. Only a psychotic religious nut would say something like that. Essentially "my gut knows better than what the facts and data says".

Even when we had Bush in the White House, for 8 years, the liberal agenda was being pushed! OMG say it isn't so!!

Yeah, just like Ben Stein huh? - The only professors who have been released from universities are the ones who refuse to acknowledge they're wrong about what they're teaching students. They refuse to face the facts because in most cases those facts go completely against their own personal beliefs. They're stubborn bastards who deserve to be fired because they're not fit to teach anyone anything.

I challenge you (again, another challenge that'll probably go ignored...) to find me one professor or educator in the world of academia who was unjustly released from their job. ONE, RICK. I bet your bitch ass can't even do that. But I bet you'll keep making the claim won'tcha?

Yeah, lets just go with what we "feel" is best.

You sir, belong in the dark ages.

 

[Osoheil]

I am fully willing to acknowledge that a child may learn different things from a mother and a father, I am even of the -opinion- that a single man/woman household is a good way to raise children. But I do not think for even a moment is a superior or even the best way, compared to the countless other ways other cultures and societies have and do raise children. I do not even have proof that a single man/woman household is a good way to raise children other than anecdotal and opinionated, which is hardly proof.

I agree not everything requires a study and studies are not always superior to wisdom. But that isn't the point. The point is you said something and tried to make it seem as fact, with no proof. Everyone has a different standard of proof, some, like me, like many claims to be supported by scientific evidence and tests, because, at least ideally, science tries to go outside of our own egos and opinions to try and establish the real and the repeatable.


I do indeed consider the psychological impact of all kinds of government policies. I am at least as worried and concerned as you seem to be about these kinds of issues. I want to have a society with equality of rights where people at least have an equal chance to pursue happiness. It deeply saddens me when I see foolish policies damaging our great nation. But the more I consider these types of things I see they are very rarely clear cut, as you sometimes make them out to be. I see the dangers of normative economics in our society, and I also see benefits. That is why these types of things are normative, because there is no right or wrong for everyone, only what the individual believes is right or wrong.



I take issue with many things you say and many of your posts because I have considered the widespread impact of what seems to be your way of thinking, that is, already having a conclusion and attempting to substantiate it, instead of using evidence to substantiate a conclusion. I may be, and perhaps even probably, am wrong, but this is what my "gut" is telling me to use one of your standards of proof.

If you need examples, the correct answer to my question is no. You do not spend much if any time thinking about the psychological aspect of issues. Anyone who spent any time contemplating human behavior and the human condition already knows that there are monumental differences in what a child learns from each parent.

Just think if this was the standard that everyone, including doctors used. Imagine if you went to a doctor with extreme chest pain and bleeding out of the skin. You told him about your pain and the seriousness of the situation. The doctor disagrees, saying "Anyone who has contemplated human physiology knows that this isn't serious, you will be fine." then sends you on your way. This is absurd and dangerous reasoning.

 

[RickWhite]

I am fully willing to acknowledge that a child may learn different things from a mother and a father, I am even of the -opinion- that a single man/woman household is a good way to raise children. But I do not think for even a moment is a superior or even the best way, compared to the countless other ways other cultures and societies have and do raise children. I do not even have proof that a single man/woman household is a good way to raise children other than anecdotal and opinionated, which is hardly proof.

I agree not everything requires a study and studies are not always superior to wisdom. But that isn't the point. The point is you said something and tried to make it seem as fact, with no proof. Everyone has a different standard of proof, some, like me, like many claims to be supported by scientific evidence and tests, because, at least ideally, science tries to go outside of our own egos and opinions to try and establish the real and the repeatable.


I do indeed consider the psychological impact of all kinds of government policies. I am at least as worried and concerned as you seem to be about these kinds of issues. I want to have a society with equality of rights where people at least have an equal chance to pursue happiness. It deeply saddens me when I see foolish policies damaging our great nation. But the more I consider these types of things I see they are very rarely clear cut, as you sometimes make them out to be. I see the dangers of normative economics in our society, and I also see benefits. That is why these types of things are normative, because there is no right or wrong for everyone, only what the individual believes is right or wrong.



I take issue with many things you say and many of your posts because I have considered the widespread impact of what seems to be your way of thinking, that is, already having a conclusion and attempting to substantiate it, instead of using evidence to substantiate a conclusion. I may be, and perhaps even probably, am wrong, but this is what my "gut" is telling me to use one of your standards of proof.




Just think if this was the standard that everyone, including doctors used. Imagine if you went to a doctor with extreme chest pain and bleeding out of the skin. You told him about your pain and the seriousness of the situation. The doctor disagrees, saying "Anyone who has contemplated human physiology knows that this isn't serious, you will be fine." then sends you on your way. This is absurd and dangerous reasoning.

You are still not getting it.

First, it is a monumental mistake to compare the type of science involved in the hard sciences to those in the behavioral sciences. Even by the most rigorous standards, behavioral science deals with educated guesses in comparison.

While I believe you are concerned with how policies effect people's minds, I know that you do not spend time analyzing how this is so.

To do that, one needs to employ wisdom and not just demand "proof" for everything in terms of charts and graphs. Many of the most obvious truths in life have no scientific proof - to believe otherwise is a common fallacy among the Left. After all, I could argue that you do not love your parents because you can not prove it, couldn't I.

And why ask for proof other than to be argumentative? Here is a Google search of the importance of family. One could do several variants on this and come up with a lot of stuff.

http://www.google.com/search?q=importance+of+family+relationships&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGIE_en

But like I said, do you really need proof that it is fucked up when a husband and wife get divorced and marry other people who typically resent having to put up with someone else's kids?

Can you not see how stressful this is on a child and how much BS they have to deal with when they are caught in the middle of a brutal divorce and custody battle?

Years ago, this was just taken for granted. What happened is that the Progressive "me generation" came along with their self centered ways and they tried to change the way we look at such matters simply to validate their own narcissism. And people like you bought the lie.

But if you claim to be someone who examines such issues, why don't you prove it. Prove it not by cutting and pasting studies but by writing a couple hundred words on the importance of family and on how this contributes to our social and economic well being. I know I could write on the subject at length - show us that you can.

Hell, there is even a wide body of knowledge on how our families influence who we are. Do some research.

 

[medicineman]

Hell, there is even a wide body of knowledge on how our families influence who we are. Do some research.
No thanks professor, Too boring.

 

[PadawanBater]

First, it is a monumental mistake to compare the type of science involved in the hard sciences to those in the behavioral sciences. Even by the most rigorous standards, behavioral science deals with educated guesses in comparison.

Dude, do you know what science means? No science is "educated guesses" - that is simply retarded. A guess is not science, even if it is educated. Science does not deal with guesses, biases, preconceived opinions, none of that. Science only deals with reality. Pull your head out.

To do that, one needs to employ wisdom and not just demand "proof" for everything in terms of charts and graphs. Many of the most obvious truths in life have no scientific proof - to believe otherwise is a common fallacy among the Left. After all, I could argue that you do not love your parents because you can not prove it, couldn't I.

OMFG WOW! Most definitely two of the stupidest things I've ever read that you actually took the time to type out.

You pull this same stupid move so often, and I call you out on it all the time.. How bout going ahead and listing these "obvious truths in life"? Again, can you even list ONE?

Love? Never heard of an MRI? Love, along with almost every other human emotion, can be detected via science. Pwned.

But like I said, do you really need proof that it is fucked up when a husband and wife get divorced and marry other people who typically resent having to put up with someone else's kids?

Explain to me again why soon to be step parents "typically resent" their step children? Your whole "me generation" theory? My generations "narcissism"?

Can you not see how stressful this is on a child and how much BS they have to deal with when they are caught in the middle of a brutal divorce and custody battle?

Riiight... because it's always about the child with conservatives, huh? When two homosexual people come along and are willing to love and support a child instead of have it grow up in foster care or gov. housing, those conservatives are usually the ones with empathy, looking out for the well being of the kid, pushing for adoption rights... give me a fuckin' break.

I also love how you totally disregard all the countless kids who have grown up to lead successful lives after having lived through their parents divorce. You don't give kids enough credit. They're not some simple balls of emotion that'll break at the slightest hint of change! I was 14 when my parents got divorced, and was old enough to realize that that's life and things change. It didn't devastate me, it didn't give me depression, I grew up with a standard childhood from then on, got good grades and graduated high school, much like a lot of other people I knew with similar circumstances.

Hell, there is even a wide body of knowledge on how our families influence who we are. Do some research.

Well, guess what, not everything requires a study and studies can not take the place of wisdom.

Make up your fuckin' mind. Do some research, don't do any research because it can't be trusted. My gut knows what's best!

 

[mr.smileyface]

Its all gentics for looks. food for size and humans adapt to enviorments. We arent that close to plants haha
if your wife had your kid in india and raise him there would his skin turn brown?