Are you speaking Irish?
Because I cannot understand that post at all.
Are you speaking Irish?
Because I cannot understand that post at all.
I almost want to say there are correlations between heightened or diminished sensitivity to physical stimuli and mental illness, but I do not have the resources to support this. However, it is worth looking into to see if this is not only possible, but does happen with some reliability. Have there been any studies to map this correlation? If one affects the other, then there might be a common variable, like a gene or a break down of physiology (hormonal, injury... etc). Should this all prove true, then it might be possible to track down the root cause of mental illness, and possibly reverse the effects rather than teach people to cope with the dysfunction.
In regards to Eco, I commend you on your efforts, but you didn't fail from lack of sufficient information. You didn't approach a scientific discussion scientifically -- in that you work to disprove... not prove your claim. It is far easier to disprove something than it is to prove it... and it also keeps you from being led by false hope from the belief that you are right.
Eco, I just posted the last part of their discussion where scientists tend to sum up the point of a paper. That paragraph comes directly from the original Science paper. I can access that, I suspect most cannot. Including you.
Anyway, if you do have access to the whole paper, just cite me the section where they say that *morals* are innate. Not what the reporter wrote, the actual research group. BTW, morals =/ = emotions. They are not the same thing. I think this is the source of your confusion. Morals are concerned with the 'goodness or badness' of human character and right and wrong. They are learned. You can see this simply b/c of the variety of moral codes that exist in different societies.
Emotions are a natural, instinctive state of mind that comes from circumstance, mood, and relationship to others. These are innate. A big clue about this is that anger, sadness, happiness, joy, disgust, fear... all are found in ALL societies across the human species. While not direct proof by itself, this is a big clue that something is innate, as opposed to taught.
You are confused, Eco. Try not to become entrenched in your opinion. Understand what this group is actually trying to say.
Second thoughts can generally be amended with judicious action; injudicious actions can seldom be recovered with second thoughts.
--Cyteen by C.J.Cherryh
Maybe, but if you browse that site I posted, they documented many of the children, after being discovered still did not express human emotions, or at least, not as easily because of their disinterest with interacting with other people at all.
Anyway, I think Eco would come to her senses if she only had a few minutes alone with this guy:
I'm not really in teaching mode here, D. I'm in 'appalled at the general public' mode on here. I shouldn't be like this, I know. I really do get pissed at how often a general media write up gets the research wrong. I know most writers don't have any science training, so they should at least send the article back to the PI to make sure they are representing his/her work correctly before publishing. You almost never get to do this, tho, b/c once the paper is published its 'public domain'.
Second thoughts can generally be amended with judicious action; injudicious actions can seldom be recovered with second thoughts.
--Cyteen by C.J.Cherryh
Well, again, being the nasty picking science-chick today:
How do you know they don't FEEL the emotions? I might suggest they do, but that they don't SHOW them. Babies smile at their moms naturally (the classic 'i'm cute, feed me' look), and are reinforced to do it more b/c their mom's smile back and feed them.
I'm sure if you poke a 'wild child' with a stick enough, you can get them to snarl at you. That's emotion. Again, nothing to do with morals, tho.
Second thoughts can generally be amended with judicious action; injudicious actions can seldom be recovered with second thoughts.
--Cyteen by C.J.Cherryh
wow he really is hot, now i'm distracted. anyway indi i never actually said morals were inherent. i did however agree with cb in that there is an 'element' of morals within us as in we inherently know certain rights and wrongs instinctively. then i proceeded to dismiss mis saying that i and cb are completely wrong and awaitied proof from her to which she posted articles about 8 yrs olds shooting their parents. to which i posted my scientific article based on info you have also found and have not posted the full article of. it's not about right or wrong, but it is open to debate and is inconclusive on both sides of the argument which essentially is my argument at this point. try and read that fras. it's english btw
Last edited by ecojeanne; 01-10-09 at 05:48 AM.
Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching
Fras... could you post a cute busty red-head? My instincts need a bit of tweaking too.
sorry eco, you lost the argument.
baby ya hustle. but me i hustle harder.
This is the best I could come up with in 30 seconds without going over the line.
For the public record, that big cock is a big cock dildo, notice the sucker on the bottom.
I slide on by on a technicality...
Was it the cock or the asian dude?
Close enough Fras...
Any further I'd be in heaven.
Well, this^ is very confusing, Eco. I would say your second sentence actually does say something very similar to your first.
Which 'right and wrongs' are you saying humans inherently know? What is this 'element' you mention?
Got it. Well, all I am saying is that Adam Anderson's paper you posted an article about doesn't support this statement:then i proceeded to dismiss mis saying that i and cb are completely wrong and awaitied proof from her to which she posted articles about 8 yrs olds shooting their parents. to which i posted my scientific article based on info you have also found and have not posted the full article of.
But, surely you understand Miso and Fras's points? That children who grew up w/o role models or in abusive environments (i.e. one lacking 'morals') are more likely to exhibit sociopathic behaviours? I'm not working in this field the way Mis is, but I think it makes sense.we inherently know certain rights and wrongs instinctively
Its actually a good thing morals can be taught. In those cases, early interventions for at-risk children can help. Hence the work of teachers, ministers, social workers, foster parents. Otherwise, we might as well doom these children to their 'inherent' lack of knowing right & wrong and start making up their jail cells now.
Ridiculous in this light, isn't it? I know I'm mixing a few levels of concepts here, but this is the logical extension of saying that knowing 'right & wrong' is innate.
Second thoughts can generally be amended with judicious action; injudicious actions can seldom be recovered with second thoughts.
--Cyteen by C.J.Cherryh
It's hard to say, but personally I don't think they are errors. I think they are just "over efficiencies". I think we are born with certain predispositions to a whole range of defensive and offensive behaviors, which we later on develop as we adopt to our environment. Everyone gets angry and has destructive qualities, everyone also gets happy and has access to a whole range of positive qualities. It's the extent to which people use these qualities is what defines their character. An the extent to which they use these qualities can be defined on both their innate predispositions to certain behaviors (nature) and how successful these behaviors are to achieve the results they wanted, the more successful the more often they will repeat the use (nurture).
I think all of this somehow falls back into the "Archetype" behaviors described by psychologist Carl Jung. That at some level there are universal behaviors that we are born with, which are accessed by everyone. And these behaviors can be triggered by certain events. For example a few women start to act like a mother when they see or hear a baby cry, their "mother" archetype is triggered and they automatically fall into the mother role and start to act out the mothering behaviour, trying to protect and care for the baby. I think archetypes is also the reason why some guys becomes knights in shining armor, their "protector" archetype is triggered and they try to act out and be "successful" in that role.
Don't cry, don't regret and don't blame
Weak find the whip, willing find freedom
Towards the sun, carry your name
In warm hands you are given
Ask the wind for the way
Uncertainty's gone, your path will unravel
Accept all as it is and do not blame
God or the Devil
~Born to Live - Mavrik~