nature v nurture

[viking]

hello,

i am interested in the nature versus nurture debate, and also how this is affected by socio-political factors. It strikes me that most communists tend to favor environmentalism (and I found out Stephen Jay Gould is a marxist) and favor imperialism. most fascist/elitists favor nature and eugenics and favor their own tribe or group. Liberal democrats are people who have just not decided or are 50/50

I am interested in learning the science of behavioral genetics, how genes govern behavior. I know other things also govern behavior, such as beliefs and "lessons learned" but it doesn't occur on top of a tabula rasa or anything, but under a rich genetic heritage.


I have heard of dual inheritance theory which makes a lot of sense. I suspect the mainstream media of the US and most everywhere else to take an egalitarian environmentalist view, so coming to accurate knowledge will as always require independent thinking and research of independent scholars. Oh I hate dogmatism. I hate secular religion even more perhaps than non secular, because of hypocrisy and denialism. I hate taboos. It is time to open the seal of how genes determine or influence behavior and intelligence and other character traits. Do you know any good place to start for my research? Thx

[mysterics]

I'm not sure what you mean in your first paragraph, are you saying that communists tend to believe 'nurture' effects behavior more whilst fascists believe more in 'nature' determines behavior?

Well to be honest, here's my take on the matter; nurture is nature, the body and mind is so malleable, our genes providing for so many differing possibilities, separating them is a bit of an impossible task, a bit like trying to separate emotion from logic, casting them asunder just doesn't really work
But if you really wish to study the effects of socialization vs the 'initial' state of a human being, maybe look at the experiences of humans not raised by humans.
Many fail to demonstrate behaviors that many people believe to be 'inherently' human, and display anatomy permanently suited to quadrupedal walking.

[bbeljefe]

(27-05-2013 03:37 AM)viking Wrote:  hello,

i am interested in the nature versus nurture debate, and also how this is affected by socio-political factors. It strikes me that most communists tend to favor environmentalism (and I found out Stephen Jay Gould is a marxist) and favor imperialism. most fascist/elitists favor nature and eugenics and favor their own tribe or group. Liberal democrats are people who have just not decided or are 50/50

I am interested in learning the science of behavioral genetics, how genes govern behavior. I know other things also govern behavior, such as beliefs and "lessons learned" but it doesn't occur on top of a tabula rasa or anything, but under a rich genetic heritage.


I have heard of dual inheritance theory which makes a lot of sense. I suspect the mainstream media of the US and most everywhere else to take an egalitarian environmentalist view, so coming to accurate knowledge will as always require independent thinking and research of independent scholars. Oh I hate dogmatism. I hate secular religion even more perhaps than non secular, because of hypocrisy and denialism. I hate taboos. It is time to open the seal of how genes determine or influence behavior and intelligence and other character traits. Do you know any good place to start for my research? Thx

If you're looking for evidence of how politics affects children, you're looking at things backward. Children experience their environments, then become adults and then choose which political affiliations they have, if any.

In short, politics is a by product of environment. e.g. Nurture.

[Bucky Ball]

(27-05-2013 03:37 AM)viking Wrote:  hello,

i am interested in the nature versus nurture debate, and also how this is affected by socio-political factors. It strikes me that most communists tend to favor environmentalism (and I found out Stephen Jay Gould is a marxist) and favor imperialism. most fascist/elitists favor nature and eugenics and favor their own tribe or group. Liberal democrats are people who have just not decided or are 50/50

I am interested in learning the science of behavioral genetics, how genes govern behavior. I know other things also govern behavior, such as beliefs and "lessons learned" but it doesn't occur on top of a tabula rasa or anything, but under a rich genetic heritage.


I have heard of dual inheritance theory which makes a lot of sense. I suspect the mainstream media of the US and most everywhere else to take an egalitarian environmentalist view, so coming to accurate knowledge will as always require independent thinking and research of independent scholars. Oh I hate dogmatism. I hate secular religion even more perhaps than non secular, because of hypocrisy and denialism. I hate taboos. It is time to open the seal of how genes determine or influence behavior and intelligence and other character traits. Do you know any good place to start for my research? Thx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_T...mily_Study
http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/scienc...twins.html

[Dom]

Don't forget chemical balance also. It all works together, but specifically hormones can have a huge effect.

[I and I]

(27-05-2013 07:25 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  

(27-05-2013 03:37 AM)viking Wrote:  hello,

i am interested in the nature versus nurture debate, and also how this is affected by socio-political factors. It strikes me that most communists tend to favor environmentalism (and I found out Stephen Jay Gould is a marxist) and favor imperialism. most fascist/elitists favor nature and eugenics and favor their own tribe or group. Liberal democrats are people who have just not decided or are 50/50

I am interested in learning the science of behavioral genetics, how genes govern behavior. I know other things also govern behavior, such as beliefs and "lessons learned" but it doesn't occur on top of a tabula rasa or anything, but under a rich genetic heritage.


I have heard of dual inheritance theory which makes a lot of sense. I suspect the mainstream media of the US and most everywhere else to take an egalitarian environmentalist view, so coming to accurate knowledge will as always require independent thinking and research of independent scholars. Oh I hate dogmatism. I hate secular religion even more perhaps than non secular, because of hypocrisy and denialism. I hate taboos. It is time to open the seal of how genes determine or influence behavior and intelligence and other character traits. Do you know any good place to start for my research? Thx

If you're looking for evidence of how politics affects children, you're looking at things backward. Children experience their environments, then become adults and then choose which political affiliations they have, if any.

In short, politics is a by product of environment. e.g. Nurture.

But corporations and their advertising are exempt from this?

[bbeljefe]

(27-05-2013 08:55 PM)I and I Wrote:  

(27-05-2013 07:25 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  If you're looking for evidence of how politics affects children, you're looking at things backward. Children experience their environments, then become adults and then choose which political affiliations they have, if any.

In short, politics is a by product of environment. e.g. Nurture.

But corporations and their advertising are exempt from this?

The discussion you and I had was about the difference between coercion and influence. You claim advertisements are coercive. They are not.

[Caveman]

First you must realise that politicians believes what is convenient and will believe something else when it is not.

[I and I]

(27-05-2013 07:25 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  

(27-05-2013 03:37 AM)viking Wrote:  hello,

i am interested in the nature versus nurture debate, and also how this is affected by socio-political factors. It strikes me that most communists tend to favor environmentalism (and I found out Stephen Jay Gould is a marxist) and favor imperialism. most fascist/elitists favor nature and eugenics and favor their own tribe or group. Liberal democrats are people who have just not decided or are 50/50

I am interested in learning the science of behavioral genetics, how genes govern behavior. I know other things also govern behavior, such as beliefs and "lessons learned" but it doesn't occur on top of a tabula rasa or anything, but under a rich genetic heritage.


I have heard of dual inheritance theory which makes a lot of sense. I suspect the mainstream media of the US and most everywhere else to take an egalitarian environmentalist view, so coming to accurate knowledge will as always require independent thinking and research of independent scholars. Oh I hate dogmatism. I hate secular religion even more perhaps than non secular, because of hypocrisy and denialism. I hate taboos. It is time to open the seal of how genes determine or influence behavior and intelligence and other character traits. Do you know any good place to start for my research? Thx

If you're looking for evidence of how politics affects children, you're looking at things backward. Children experience their environments, then become adults and then choose which political affiliations they have, if any.

In short, politics is a by product of environment. e.g. Nurture.

Individuals don't affect their environment at all. Cultures and a people do with their shared notions, shared ideologies, belief systems etc etc. How this culture impresses on an individual is different in degrees hence we have people with different opinions within the framework of the same ideology. A culture and it's politics is not made consciously unfortunately, Mao wrote on this topic a lot. A culture is defined by an objective assumption of an overall daily activities and ideas of a specific group of people. A culture as a whole with it's different aspects and modes of production having an affect on it's political ideology does happen, but this very different from saying that an individual affects that individuals politics. Not counting the fact that you can't even define an "individual". Has an individual ever existed? where and how? did this individual exist?

Checkmate.

[Chas]

(28-05-2013 01:42 AM)I and I Wrote:  

(27-05-2013 07:25 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  If you're looking for evidence of how politics affects children, you're looking at things backward. Children experience their environments, then become adults and then choose which political affiliations they have, if any.

In short, politics is a by product of environment. e.g. Nurture.

Individuals don't affect their environment at all. Cultures and a people do with their shared notions, shared ideologies, belief systems etc etc. How this culture impresses on an individual is different in degrees hence we have people with different opinions within the framework of the same ideology. A culture and it's politics is not made consciously unfortunately, Mao wrote on this topic a lot. A culture is defined by an objective assumption of an overall daily activities and ideas of a specific group of people. A culture as a whole with it's different aspects and modes of production having an affect on it's political ideology does happen, but this very different from saying that an individual affects that individuals politics. Not counting the fact that you can't even define an "individual". Has an individual ever existed? where and how? did this individual exist?

Checkmate.

Individuals don't affect their environment? Really? So culture exists apart from people and individuals don't exist. Sure.

Your ideas are incoherent.