Meritocratic Isles
November 12, 2018, 10:26:24 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Meritocratic Isles!
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Debate Nature versus nurture  (Read 17358 times)
Robinho
Ephor
Neodamode
*

Merit: 6
Posts: 44


« on: October 31, 2008, 11:58:20 PM »

I have noticed in the press that there has been a bit of a push to describe things such as gender behaviour diffrences as biologically pre-ordained. I am intrested to see what my fellow citizens view as the reasons for behaviour do we feel that they are a result of our genes or the  environment that we are raised in? Or are they a combination of the two?

Anyway there is the topic i put forward, maybe im genetically programmed to find it more intresting  Grin Wink Grin
Logged
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2008, 09:09:23 AM »

Well, WE are also uncertain of this argument as well.  To mention the possibility of the pre-ordained by THE ALMIGHTY rather stops a lot of arguments, so let's let the citizens instead confine the discussion to scientific reasoning (with ALL due respect to THE ALMIGHTY).

WE think, due to their small percentages, their unpopularity, and their social unwillingness to reproduce, that Mad Scientists are bought about by unconscious (or subconscious) environmental factors, rather than a genetic predisposition.

WE have appointments this morning that preclude OUR detailing OUR rationale for this line of thinking, but WE invite OUR fellow citizens to express their opinions while we are away.
Logged
Robinho
Ephor
Neodamode
*

Merit: 6
Posts: 44


« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2008, 05:56:51 PM »

intrestingly in recent research on transexuals it found that their brains work more similiar to the sex they feel they are than the sex they actually are. Scientists reckon this is down to biological factors, i.e. hormonoal exposure in the womb.
Thus perhaps mad scientists are a result of improper levels of serrotonin (etc) to the fetus during pregnancy so with caeful hormonal management in expecting mothers we can wipe them out!
Logged
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2008, 06:53:10 AM »

WE are not convinced that such pre-natal factors CAUSE the brain to behave in a certain fashion.  Is it not possible that the brain recognized a behavior it believed desirable and subconsciously began to emulate or copy that behavior?

The human organism looks for successful role models.  Mad Scientists can be very visible models of independence, sometimes appearing more successful than they really are.  Something WE like to call, "The Bad Boy Effect", in which a daughter commonly shocks her parents by bringing home some kind of rebellious youth and professing her undying affection.  In the case of Mad Scientists, the attraction can be very strong:  The (previously mentioned) Independence, Acceptance and Praise of Peers, The Ability to Either Work for a Fabulously Rich Evil Overlord OR Self Employment, An Obviously Creative AND Destructive Community.

If the Human Organism is designed or "hard-wired" for anything, it is for survival and achievement.  Unfortunately, Mad Scientists often are too busy to date, or they have messed up their body chemistry, or they've blown themselves to smithereens.  So much genius is lost... it's a pity.

The Mad Scientists are protective of their community.  Though often solitary and revelling in their differences from the rest of humanity, they generally do look toward not being alone in the world.  WE imagine that if a pre-natal condition or gene could be identified as the determining factor in a person growing up to be a Mad Scientist or not, that the Mad Scientist community would radically shift toward a pro-natural-life and anti-abortion political position.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2008, 07:05:52 AM by King Chester » Logged
Robinho
Ephor
Neodamode
*

Merit: 6
Posts: 44


« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2008, 04:22:17 PM »

If the Human Organism is designed or "hard-wired" for anything, it is for survival and achievement.  Unfortunately, Mad Scientists often are too busy to date, or they have messed up their body chemistry, or they've blown themselves to smithereens.  So much genius is lost... it's a pity.

To borrow from evoloutionary psychology one of the base urges that every organism possess is the need to reproduce and ensure the survival of the genes. Now Mad scientists may not reproduce in the conventional sense but surely by expereminting in cloning, genetic engineering even frankenstein monster situations they are basically following the basic urge to continue the survival of  their genetic traits (or those that are desirable in frankenstein situations).
So thus perhaps Mad scientists are in fact more a result of teir genetic background and evoloutinary leanings than first though?
Logged
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2008, 04:59:59 PM »

Robinho wrote: 
Quote
So,thus perhaps Mad scientists are in fact more a result of teir background and evolutionary leanings than first thoug?

WE are not certain what you mean.  Are you abandoning the genetic argument?

Another line of thought:  If there is a genetic component to becoming a Mad Scientist, how can one person from a set of identical twins (or triplets... or more identical persons) wind up as a Mad Scientist and have a person with the exact same genetic material not become a Mad Scientist?
Logged
Robinho
Ephor
Neodamode
*

Merit: 6
Posts: 44


« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2008, 01:01:18 AM »

the evolutionary aspect is a continuation of the genetic predisposition argument as`it theorises may aspects of social behaviour, such as helping or aggression are motivated by inborn factors -especially by the desire to maximise our genetic contribution to the next generation ( buss, 1999)

here is an intresting article on twins who were split at birth. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2007/dec/02/women.familyandrelationships

Its intresting to note that both suffered eating disorders, both share similiar politics and outlooks on life as well as both being writers. this would perhaps be indication that certain behaviours are actually genetic.

so perhaps the reason one twin goes off to become a mad scientist is a result of certain genes being expressed, whereas in the other sibling it is not but the potential is still there.




p.s. the twins being so similiar in the above article may in fact be a really good argument for horroscopes  Wink Grin

p.p.s. personally i believe more in the nurture more than the nature in the nurture over nature debate. im just trying to give the arguments against the earlier points  Grin Grin Grin
« Last Edit: November 06, 2008, 01:11:11 AM by Robinho » Logged
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2008, 10:25:24 PM »

Robinho,  OUR respect for you is increasing even more.  It takes a more agile mind than OURS to effectively make good arguments for positions that one does not necessarily subscribe to.

WE are also of the opinion that Mad Scientists come about through environmental factors, but popularly that opinion is not politically correct.

NOT meaning to totally go off at a tangent, WE wish to hypothesize that those Mad Scientists subscribing to the genetic cause feel some desire to reject a weakness that they feel they ought to have been in control of.  The "We are the product of genetic factors" argument is a formidable barrier against irrational feelings and simultaneously an excuse to their behavior.  Again, WE do NOT state that the Mad Scientist consciously decided a life different from the majority of society.

Feelings ARE irrational, but that doesn't make feelings unreal.  In literature, the INTELLECTUAL Dr Jekyll was horrified that the BASE Mr. Hyde was a part of him.  In modern pop culture, imagine, from the current sit-com, "Big Bang Theory", the character of Dr. Sheldon Cooper discovering and recoiling from anything he could recognize as irrational in his own self.  Each human is ego-centric to some degree, small or great, and often fails to recall how small he or she is when compared the the universe.  If a man or woman's experiences have led them to a path that they don't recall choosing, there is no need to feel guilty about that past.  Once the path is recognized, however, one then can attempt to consciously chart one's future, in either acceptance, denial, or perhaps some other option.
Logged
Robinho
Ephor
Neodamode
*

Merit: 6
Posts: 44


« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2008, 02:21:55 PM »

Truly you flatter me dear sir while playing down your own abilities.  Grin

As you said the popular theory, at least as far as the media, for explainig a lot of abnormal (this is just meant as different from the norm not extremes such as psychotic killers etc) behaviour is that it is all explained biologically. Personally i feel this is reductionist. I also feel that when you suggest the mad scientists may be subscribing it to a genetic factor or even just enviromental factors they must posses a degree of self loathing.  I may be a little hippy like there though  Cheesy. I subscribe to the theory that you are a result of both your envronment and your genetics. More so the environment, but at the same time its down to your own free will, its just both those factors may make some form of lifestyle easier.
I do agree with you point about you may not be aware of the factors that resulted in you choosing a path and that you should not feel guilty about your path, unless the path you have gone down is resulting in pain to others (remember my karmaic beliefs, and my feelings that you should treat people like you want to be treated).









p.s. if the mad scientist is rich do they become merely 'eccentric scientists'?

p.p.s. does anyone else have views dont be intimidated by the fine King Chesters and my own thoughts so far  Grin Grin Grin .
Logged
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2008, 12:21:05 AM »

Yes, WE do remember The Golden Rule  Grin

WE believe that Mad Scientists become "Eccentric" when they become more scientifically rounded, but  it's possible that WE are wrong in this.

At the risk of seeming Freudian or Darwinian, WE note that since The Fall, that human beings are also geared toward hedonism.  WE sometimes think that perhaps one becomes addicted to a pleasure and then pigeonholes one's self to a particular pleasure to the exclusion of other possible pleasures.  The Mad Scientist, having experimented with fringe or weird science, finds the concept of laborious scientific method stifling and unrewarding when compared to the thrilling and easy pursuit of intuition.  If one imagines that both sciences deliver an equal amount of pleasure then one might HYPOTHESIZE that all scientists were eccentric (freely crossing back and forth between methodologies).  However, Eccentric Scientists are looked upon with suspicion by both Main Stream Scientists AND  Mad Scientists.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!