/sci/ - Science & Math

Because nature is the correct argument.

>>2646579
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

tl;dr : children brought up by dogs act like dogs, have dog-like senses.

nuture wins in a knockout. Tabula rasa all the way

>>2646581
really now. You can have a child raised by dogs and it will have the equivalent magnitude of sense of smell as them?

>>2646579
Are you a moron?

>>2646582
to some extent, yes

it's hard to exaggerate how plastic the brain is

>>2646584
idiot.

source now, or you are making shit up.

>>2646587
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxana_Malaya

>>2646587
This is usually around the time when you start apologizing instead of (a) prolonging the thread until you are further buried in evidence, or (b) close the thread and pretend it never happened to keep your brittle ego intact.

>>2646590
did you even check your sources?

one link was broken, one was a russian one, one was a news article that said nothing about heightened senses.

the only one that mentions it was:

http://dogsinthenews.com/stories/060925b.php

and fuckign SERIOUSLY?!

THIS is your all-important source for saying that she has "heightened senses"?

it was a passing passage, with no study or evidence to back it up.

if this is what you consider a viable source, then you should go die in a fire.

THIS is the reason people say dont trust wikipedia. START by reading wikipedia, then check the sources, then look for your own sources.

Nature? What Nature?

>>2646601
Ah, you chose the former. I expected as much.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/250596/ukranian_girl_raised_by_dogs/

Shame this board doesn't attract the bright ones like it used to.

>>2646599
why hello samefag.

get off your high horse and read YOUR OWN FUCKING SOURCE.

the human brain is an amazing thing, but its not this super-tool that is capable of everything.

we are programmed, physiologically, to have the senses we have.

sure, you can become "better" at something, like wine tasting, by doing it more often, but its not going to raise your senses to these super-human levels that are unexplained by science.

living in the wild has long been associated with children becoming survivalists, with a moral compass superior to our own, and physical attributes far surpassing athletes etc.

the truth lies very far from that legend.

READ YOUR OWN FUCKING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON FERAL CHILDREN.

>>2646605
i now think you are a troll.

that video had numerous problems.

1) IT DID NOT MENTION HEIGHTENED SENSES.
2) that video in no way backed up its claims with sources.
3) there were numerous quote mines.

are you seriously going to try and use this as a source?

you are either a troll, or an idiot. im hoping the former.

>>2646605
This is usually around the time when you start apologizing instead of (a) prolonging the thread until you are further buried in evidence, or (b) close the thread and pretend it never happened to keep your brittle ego intact.

If we're talking about sensory plasticity there is research being conducted in those fields.

Notably in regards to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation

Though the claims about feral children smelling as well as dogs are unlikely it's not completely impossible for them to be more focused on their sense of smell.

another possible theory
if its nature you can make strict predictions looking forward
if its nurture you can only analyze by looking back

>>2646657
this is pretty cool.

a perfect example of the brain taking on a capacity it doesnt normally do; interpreting sounds to judge distance, and not just direction.

i would read more into it, but unfortunantly, i dont have access to those journals off this computer.

there was also a disturbingly low number of legitimate sources in that wiki article. the majority were news articles.

>>2646657
"more focused" will simply not make up for the lack of olfactory receptors.

iirc dogs have over 220 million, whereas humans have about 5 million.

BIG difference there.

>>2646685
Please try to read. I explicitly said there was no way feral children were smelling as well as dogs.

That doesn't mean their sense of smell can't be more acute or emphasized when compared to non-feral humans.

ITT:

FAGGOTS REPEATEDLY FAILSPELL NURTURE".

>>2646581
>>2646576

idiots.

>>2646694
>though the claims about feral children smelling as well as dogs are unlikely

implying it is in any way possible for humans to have a dogs sense of smell, or even close to it.

please try to read your own post before telling me to re-read yours.

>>2646685

But being raised by dogs sounds like a reason someone would be on the higher end of the human scale of receptors

ie you wouldn't be as good as dogs, but you would probably be far superior to typical humans simply through the will that comes from the pure need to train it for survival or competition

>>2646599
>>2646605
lol, i like how this fat faggot and his retarded paki slut stfu when proven wrong.

>>2646702

I suppose you think you're clever now.

>>2646708
1) there were claims made that humans could be on a level playing field in terms of the sense of smell when it came to dogs.

2) supply evidence that feral children are even on the high end of the spectrum in regards to olfactory receptors. remember "i think it is" is not a valid argument.

3) the "increase" in sensory perception through use comes from an ability to better interpret the signals, not from the production of more receptors.

>>2646719

1) More like some guy with a limited understanding using vague language to create implications of exaggerated claims, since the "extent" he said was that the average person would agree she has dog like senses for being able to perceive many more smells than they can distinguish

2) There are many, many cases of people becoming better than average through increased exposure and training (these are actually the only ways to become better at anything), so prove that smelling is an exemption.

3) an increase in perception (ie ability to sense) is the claim that was made, you were the one who made the strawman about physical receptors instead of the original claim of sensory perception

>>2646763
1) it started over claims that feral children have increased senses. i asked for a source, and none have been given.

2) you completely missed my point. i was referring to HIS post that stated:

>sounds like a reason someone would be on the higher end of the human scale of receptors

my response was perfectly reasonable and accurate.

if you READ THE FUCKING THREAD, you will notice i said that senses can be improved through training and use, but not to the extent that they are even remotely comparable to a dogs sense of smell.

3) no, an increase in perception so great that it was similar to a dogs was made. it was also claimed that feral children have increased capacities.

i called bullshit on both.

the receptors came up because someone said that senses can get better with use and i countered with "no amount of training can make up for the serious lack of receptors".

this is true.

Douchebag. Provide empirical/actual evidence. Your argument is totally flawed without a proper basis.

Also "... how plastic the brain is." Yes, brain plasticity etc etc. You're aware that she'll never function normally socially and never have decent verbal skills? You also realise that her acute sense of smell/hearing will return normal levels soon enough? Btw, what I'm citing now is fact. It's for you to look it up.

Finally, don't go around touting shit that you know nothing about and cannot prove you fucking douche

>>2646763

In relation to point 2. Training. Which domains? Perception? Cognitive tasks? Whichever it may be, there are limitations no matter which way you look at it.

I can practice listening to elephant calls for 10 years by playing recordings of them and placing my head right next to my sub. After 10 years, I may be a little better but I a) cannot actually hear their calls since it they're beyond my PHYSICAL capabilities. b) I am now deaf

Fuck i love you /sci/.

Never stop debunking the pseudo-scientific nonsense people spit out after hearing it on their local news.

Why does it have to be nature vs nurture with everyone? Anybody with an ounce of common sense can tell it's a combination of both. Both theories, in order to be true, would have to assume the other just doesn't exist, and sense that is impossible, this argument has been a joke since it started years ago.

>>2646797
They don't have greater senses, they just know how to utilize them to a more full potential.
Also, it's interesting because whereas you or I would be cold in the snow, Feral Children have been noted to have no problem with it and would be perfectly fine in it as well. They also, according to Psychology books, tend to take extremely cold baths too, probably due to their natural disposition.

It sounds better. You'd be better off asking /lit/ to explain it to you, I don't know the technical terms, just which one sounds better to me.

>>2646965
you might want to recheck your sources.

there are very, very few cases of confirmed "feral children".

the vast majority have been debunked, including the famous indian "wolf girls".

the only one left really is the one brought up in this thread, the russian girl who was mistreated by her mother and left outside with the dog.

it is important to note, however, that she can now speak, socialize and eat normally.

she even had a boyfriend for a while, the last i heard of her.

in short, the vast, vast majority of the "research" done into feral children has been debunked. on top of this, there are simply not enough cases of these situations to make any statement with confidence, let alone to be so sure about it to make absolute, and "unanimously accepted" generalizations about them.

when it comes to feral children, a lot of people talk shit. they repeat what they hear on tv, or in news articles, because that is the only place you will find people talking about it.

unfortunately, the media has a habit of very quickly jumping on the bandwagon when there is little/no evidence, and simply ignoring/not reporting the opposite side when proven wrong.

all this stems from the fact that humans are generally intrigued by the concept of feral children. we WANT to know what happens when children are raised in the wild, and stories abound throughout human history of people guessing what they would be like. problem was, they were, in general, all wrong.

one would say its a shame we dont have a larger sample size to draw evidence from, but then again, its not something you really want to wish upon a child purely so we could satisfy our curiosity.

>>2646965
Though I pretty much agree with the people you are arguing against, I must say that I am inclined to agree on this:

>>They don't have greater senses, they just know how to utilize them to a more full potential.

Me believing this is due to having watched some discovery channel documentary about some blind guy who clicked his tongue to create an echo which would allow him to detect objects in his vicinity. He went out for a bike ride and explored a cave and shit only by clicking his tongue.

Then again, they didn't clinically test him on the show to prove that he was in fact blind, it was only stated (also, his eyes looked fucked up, like they do on people who've been blind since birth).

The famous psychologist Donald Hebb is said to have once answered a journalist's question of "which, nature or nurture, contributes more to personality?" by asking in response, "which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?"

>>2647050
thats easy. the shorter one.

it produces more area per unit of length.

HURR I AM SO SMART.