|
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 23, 2010 7:28:55 GMT 10
In researching how much of our individualities are shaped by nature and how much by nurture, studies of twins abound. For instance, there is the following meta-analysis report: |
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 20, 2012 10:17:31 GMT 10
There is certainly an answer if those interested can give up on the nature vs. nurture fallacy. It is a fallacy indeed. One must admit that the twin studies and the adoption studies come immediately to mind. When peculiar oddities of behavior are shown in twins raised separately it is amazing to contemplate the statistical probability that they were somehow taught the same behaviors under two different social environments.
In your cut and paste above, whoever the author is seems to not know about the Texas Adoption Project or the Minnesota Twin Study (just to mention two studies that made it into popular publications). The evidence is overwhelming against the idea that biology offers little more than a suckling response.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 20, 2012 19:38:51 GMT 10
The opening post is not just a cut and paste (that's just a taster). A link is provided to the peer-reviewed report itself. BTW: My position has been that there are situational sex differences (evolutionary primary and secondary physical characteristics; inter-generational familial traits, which are soon lost in the wider gene pool; birth defects and later injuries; and societal memes) but no inherent gender differences. We are concerned here with the possibility of there being inherent (i.e., genetic) differences of mind (e.g., psyche) between groups (e.g., gender), in accordance with the term "Evolutionary Psychology." |
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 21, 2012 0:45:47 GMT 10
Since my mindometer is in the shop I am left with being able to measure and observe behavior and with the proper tools neurological activity. Gender, as I mentioned before, is a social construct though it is based on sex. Sex is a biological term. I have little interest in gender studies because that field has become polluted with social agendas that would attempt to suppress questions that are uncomfortable or contra-agenda.
So if the question is about differences in mind (an abstraction) between social constructs based upon biological or socially learned factors I can't help in determining an answer. I don't think that anyone could.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 21, 2012 5:59:42 GMT 10
Apart from our respective opinions on which side of the debate is more agenda driven, we seem to agree on the difficulties it presents. I note that you have for quite some time been assuring us of strong, valid evidence for your heterodox theories but are yet to produce it. So if the question is about differences in mind (an abstraction) between social constructs based upon biological or socially learned factors I can't help in determining an answer. I don't think that anyone could. I too don't think anyone could. Not because we have yet to find the ghost in the machine but because it's not there. |
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 21, 2012 13:59:10 GMT 10
It isn't my theory and it certainly is not heterodox. Behaviorism, and its sad relabeled attempts have been replaced by the cognitive revolution. The application of evolutionary theory to psychology is in line with the cognitive revolution. Behaviorism is the heterodox theory that all human behavior is the result of learning. The evidence that I brougth forward was cast aside, in at least one case with the indepth statement monkeys are not people.
In any case, without an operational definition of mind - which the best that has been offered here is that it is an undefined abstraction or a summation of the neurological activity. Gender is, and always will be a social construct but it would foolish to think that it was not based in some part on our biology. I am inclined to agree with you on this though, it appears most likely that there is no ghost in the machine. Just the living, eating, and surviving machine itself. I would like to think that there was something more, and if there is I hope to find it.
|
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 21, 2012 14:00:16 GMT 10
. . . and sorry for my lack of participation, as I mentioned earlier I am quite busy at the moment and I was overly-ambitious when I thought that I would be finished. I am still in the trenches.
|
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Feb 21, 2012 15:51:23 GMT 10
... it appears most likely that there is no ghost in the machine. Just the living, eating, and surviving machine itself. I would like to think that there was something more, and if there is I hope to find it. You won't find it strictly within the confines of the human brain. This is the realm of Metaphysics. |
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 21, 2012 16:31:24 GMT 10
So not measurable then?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 21, 2012 20:00:39 GMT 10
It isn't my theory and it certainly is not heterodox. You subscribe to it and orthodox scientific opinion holds that we are not driven by instincts. Behaviorism, and its sad relabeled attempts have been replaced by the cognitive revolution. The application of evolutionary theory to psychology is in line with the cognitive revolution. Behaviorism is the heterodox theory that all human behavior is the result of learning. No, although sometimes called the "learning perpective" Behaviourism is a discipline which limits what it will count as evidence to observable behaviours (excluding any speculative, inner motives). Instincts are among the subjects Behaviorists study. Moreover, the Cognitive Revolution largely arose from B.F. Skinner and other Behaviourists. Pinker's contribution was to introduce the notion of innate human behaviours (instincts), for which valid evidence has yet to be produced. The evidence that I brougth forward was cast aside, in at least one case with the indepth statement monkeys are not people. I think Smithee's point is that the issue of innate behaviours (instincts) is not in question with monkeys. In any case, without an operational definition of mind - which the best that has been offered here is that it is an undefined abstraction or a summation of the neurological activity. What do you propose? Gender is, and always will be a social construct but it would foolish to think that it was not based in some part on our biology. The approaches to gender undoubtedly take our biology into account but that does not mean they are innate. Indeed, their cultural variety show they are variously learned. I am inclined to agree with you on this though, it appears most likely that there is no ghost in the machine. Just the living, eating, and surviving machine itself. Behaviourism: Remember it is only an evidentiary discipline (it does not rule out mental events). I would like to think that there was something more, and if there is I hope to find it. For your sake I hope it will not be like a blind man looking in a dark room for a black cat that isn't there. |
|
