[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 97 KB, 1326x1024, ErmmwhatOP.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2608994 No.2608994 [Reply] [Original]

So is it true that whatever happens in the child's first five years determines what he'll be like as an adolescent or teenager? Or is it that whatever happens in the first years have major effects, but what happens after is still important?

>> No.2609006

I bet it has something to do with that kids are so mailable to anything, such as indoctrination.

so yea, I guess so

If some nigger grows up with drugs and gang shit, I guess he won't know what its like to be 20 years old because he'll be dead

>> No.2609012

Yes, but it's not something controllable. You're so malleable as a child that even hearing a sentence you don't understand can get stuck in your subconscious, or a certain colour association, which then later shapes who you are or what you do, your relationships etc

This is why everybody is completely unique.

>> No.2609033

>>2609012
>unique
Okay.
>completely unique.
Ehhhhhhyeeeeeeuhmmmmmnneeehhhherrmmm, sure, sure, whatever.

>> No.2609062

>>2608994
Brain's plasticity.
And this 5 years bullshit comes from some psychoanalysts. So it's wrong in every possible way. Keep that in mind :
psychoanalysis => wrong in every possible way.

>> No.2609078

Here's a neat article about how the first 6 years or so develop a lot of ideas about race, and other in-groups and out-groups and stereotypes.
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/09/04/see-baby-discriminate.html

Also, the first 6 years is where the Westermarck effect takes place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_%28psychology%29#Westermarck_effect

>> No.2609079

The mind's like the software that runs the brain (even though software actually has a physical presence on computers), a kind of software that continues to develop on it's own, depending on what happens with the person. So yes, what happens in early develop can alter the person during later development.

>> No.2609099

>>2609079
>The mind's like the software that runs the brain
are you a cognitive scientist coming from the 70s?

>> No.2609145

>>2609099
No person has ever said that in a respectable forum at any time.

Anyway, it's a hard question to answer especially because it's so hard to distinguish effects from early childhood from effects of genetics itself. Even with separated twin studies.

>> No.2609177

Unless you suffer extreme neglect or abuse, what happens in your childhood has surprisingly little effect on how you turn out. Latest research suggests 80% of your personality is genetic.

>> No.2609182

>>2609012
[this is what crypto-marxist pseudoscientists really believe]

>> No.2609196

>>2609177
>this is what racists actually believe

>> No.2609214

>>2609196
>science is racist baaaw my ass hurts

You have a citation to go with your ad hom?

>> No.2609218
File: 17 KB, 813x786, 339.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2609218

Quasi-related: I've spent most of my adult life thinking of my childhood as having been perfect and idyllic, but I just realized (with help) that it was actually really fucking horrible, and that realization blew my mind. It blew my mind completely. It would not be an exaggeration to say that it changes everything. This whole thing feels really good, actually.

>> No.2609235

>>2609177
Genetic research or statistical research?

This is really important, here. I really don't trust the correlation = causation line of reasoning used by many statistical investigations into heredity.

>> No.2609256

>>2609235

Empirical research. As in, science. Is it 100% certain beyond any doubt? Of course not, nothing is: Science deals in probabilities, not in facts.

>> No.2609297

>>2609177
>80% of personnality is genetic
>Total bullshit

It isn't true, period. Here are a few things that are genetic which affect you at a small age:

-Disposition (from the french word tempérament) which is kind of the bilogogical personnality of the child (some babies cry more, some don't, some are more irritable, some aren't,...)
-Diseases or conditions - this is obvious
- IQ - It is generally believed that IQ is a question of genetics (parents with high IQ = children with high IQ). Not saying intelligence, just IQ.
- Physical caracteristics - This is also obvious (skin color, weight, metabolism, ...)

Only to name a few, but I personnaly think that environment is much more important in a child's development, assuming he doesn't have a heavy handicap at birth.

>> No.2609343

Actually early ages are really important as it's the main period of brain growth and basic abilities development. It has a great influence, for instance if a child doesn't learn a language before 5 years, probably never will be able to speak fluently.
However OP, if you talk about social skills,political and religious beliefs, well, they can be changed over time depending on the personal experiences. (with a lot of work of-course)

>> No.2609371

>>2609256
I don't think you really grasp how complex a system a human being is. For starters, a gene (or many) that makes certain individuals more strongly influenced by experience than others is not only possible, but probable. Secondly, what if this sort of hereditary information isn't passed down through actual genetic information, but through the fetus being more prone to have an emotional makeup similar to that of its mother while in the womb, due to some as-of-yet-unknown process at play in the early development of the human brain?

Empiricism is all well and good, but you can't just say that one thing is caused by another without any kind of hypothesis as to the mechanism to even fucking test in the first place. It looks to be vaguely hereditary but what the hell tells you that it's simple or chromosomal? Many genes are more complicated than hair color, you know. That's troll logic you're using. "Tides go in, tides go out, therefore god lol"

>> No.2609405

>>2609297
>The first evidence that a normal personality trait is partially medicated by genes comes from two studies, one from Israel and the other from the United States (Nature Genetics 1995;12:78-80, 81-4). Both test the hypothesis that individual variation in the “novelty seeking” trait, a normal personality characteristic that we all possess, is associated with a genetically determined variability in dopamine transmission in the brain.
http://www.bmj.com/content/312/7023/75.1.extract

>Large sample size studies in monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins raised together show an average correlation [of measured intelligence] of .86 for MZ twins, while the correlation for DZ twins is only .60
http://www.scq.ubc.ca/the-genetic-basis-of-intelligence/

>Studies of the heritability of personality traits indicate broad-sense heritabilities in the 0.40-0.50 range with evidence of substantial nonadditive genetic variation and nonshared environmental influences.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_199804/ai_n8795273/?tag=content;col1

>> No.2609412

>>2609371

It's not a guess. I suggest if you're actually interested that you do some reading, the figure of 40 to 80% for hereditability of a very wide number of cognitive traits is well-established by DECADES of experimental research.

>> No.2609630

>what if this sort of hereditary information isn't passed down through actual genetic information, but through the fetus being more prone to have an emotional makeup similar to that of its mother while in the womb, due to some as-of-yet-unknown process at play in the early development of the human brain?

Good hypothesis, unfortunately the data doesn't back it up. They have studied identical twins who were separated at birth. Twins will be much more similar in personality and IQ than non identical siblings that come from the same womb.

To be fair to the hypothesis that you came up with, fraternal twins are more statistically similar than regular siblings, so there is stuff that goes on in the womb that affects people, but it is small compared to genetics and environment.

Oh, also here's a quote from wikipedia that shows more proof:

that the main assumption of the twin study is that of equal environments. At an intuitive level, this seems reasonable – why would parents note that two children shared their hair and eye color, and then contrive to make their IQs identical? Indeed, how could they?

This assumption, however, has been directly tested. An interesting case occurs where parents believe their twins to be non-identical when in fact they are genetically MZ. Studies of a range of psychological traits indicate that these children remain as concordant as MZs raised by parents who treated them as identical.

Anyway, dude, that genetics affects people's personality and intelligence is reaaaaaaaallllllly well established. No serious scientist doubts it any more. I suggest you go read up on the subject of nature vs. nurture. I recommend Matt Ridley's The Agile Gene for a fair look at which factors are influenced by genes, and which are influenced by environment.