|
Post by brandt on Mar 26, 2012 9:59:09 GMT 10
How would you endeavor to test this experimentally? I am sure some ethics people would frown upon manipulating a human fetus.
I have heard, not sure, that hand preference developed as a by-product of bipedalism. I haven't chased that down to confirm.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 26, 2012 10:06:32 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 26, 2012 10:16:50 GMT 10
How would you endeavor to test this experimentally? I am sure some ethics people would frown upon manipulating a human fetus. Good point. I am not really sure how it would be tested but I am guessing ultrasound may reveal the orientation of the embryo and in vitro technology may provide some non-invasive options. I have heard, not sure, that hand preference developed as a by-product of bipedalism. I haven't chased that down to confirm. I have heard right-handedness has to do with the heart being to the left of centre and following on from that is the way babies are usually carried and nursed and that later it had the benefit of exposing the least vulnerable side in an attack. I have also heard that an advantage of left-handedness as an exception to the general rule is that it catches enemies off guard if they have learnt to expect a right-handed response. We can come up with explanations for just about anything. What we need is proof.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 26, 2012 10:22:29 GMT 10
There is not much to go by on your link. It seems to be based on the assumption that innate behaviours exist. We still need evidence to support that assumption.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 26, 2012 10:43:39 GMT 10
Many moons ago when I began to study Jeet Kune Do I had to completely alter the way I did things to use a southpaw stance. It was useful to be able to switch leads during sparring.
On the fetus study, we really couldn't (or shouldn't) manipulate the fetus. We could, as you suggested, simply observe but it lack manipulation and would make it more difficult to draw conclusions of causality.
The link: Take some time to dig through it. I remember a twin study in which the oddest behaviors were present in both individuals though they were raised in entirely different circumstances. I guess there is a chance that such odd behaviors could have resulted in both individuals by chance, the probability is doubtless extremely small.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 26, 2012 19:36:49 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 26, 2012 23:07:52 GMT 10
I have read some of the literature on fetal learning. I know what you posted is a summary at best and shouldn't be taken to task too hard. Some of the points raised about twin studies applied to both schools of thought (learning-only or the nature-nuture dynamic). There have been twin studies that I find to be questionable, then there are others that the question of similar environments is addressed and environmental differences are pronounced.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on May 3, 2012 20:00:29 GMT 10
If is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it Upton Sinclair(Awarded Pulitzer prize this day 1943)
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on May 25, 2012 14:41:10 GMT 10
Part of me hopes that homosexuality is genetic so that there is a stronger case to protect the rights of homosexuals in society. There are many of compatriots in the Western world that believe that it is a choice. That is a good reason to determine the factors that select one meme and not another to be perpetuated. Otherwise we are left with having to determine a genetic function. That would be difficult considering that most, I am guessing, homosexuals don't procreate. I would like to go on record saying that it doesn't matter, ethically, if homosexuality is genetic or memetic or choice and that people should be left to their own devices in their personal lives. It is a tough question for the social learning and the genetic behavioralist (whom I have had problems with). Our society certainly does not condone or teach homosexuality and it would be tough to find any genetic predisposition to homosexuality. "To say that genetic differences are relevant to hetero- and homosexuality is not, however, to say that there are "genes for homosexuality" or even that there is a "genetic tendency to homosexuality." This critical point can be illustrated by an example I owe to the philosopher of science, Elliott Sober. If we look at the chromosomes of people who knit and those who do not, we will find that with few exceptions, knitters have two X chromosomes [women], while people with one X and one Y chromosome [men] almost never knit. Yet it would be absurd to say that we had discovered genes for knitting. ... n our culture, women are taught to knit and men are not. The beauty of this example is its historical (and geographical) contingency. Had we made our observations before the end of the eighteenth century (or even now in a few Irish, Scottish and Newfoundland communities), the results would have been reversed. Hand knitting was men's works before the introduction of knitting machines around 1790, and was turned into a female domestic occupation only when mechanization made it economically marginal." - Richard Lewontin
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Aug 16, 2012 20:59:48 GMT 10
|
|