Thats ok chump its aimed at the smart people.
Are you having a mid life crisis?
Thats ok chump its aimed at the smart people.
Some studies show (based on identical twins that were separated at birth) that it's generally 60% nurture and 40% nature.
If I didn't reply to those that disagree with you I would never post.
.
I agree, thats because you have got nothing to say that cant be easily picked apart.
Almost anything is easy to pick apart when you only have the slightest grasp of logic and reason.
That sounds a lot like a confession.
This has interested me for a while. When I was in grad school (as they call it in Canada) we we tought about Cyril Burt (factor analysis). Interesting, but he also fabricated a whole bunch of twin study research. This stuff is hard to subject to proper experimentation (due to ethics) anyway, without cheating. After all these year, however . . . I suspect your % are about right.
Thats it chump, have another go. And fail at both. I see you agreeing with the other resident pillock, 40% nature and 60% nurture, and no dount 26% free will as well?
Even with the increased understanding of brain plasticity? I would have thought that given the brain's ability to rewire itself we would be looking at larger increase on the nurture side.
Ahh the 7 year old response. I know you are but what am I?
Only a short exchange of posts with you and I remember why I don't bother with your nonsense. Your posts contain nothing of worth.
See ya Snowflake.
IOW he is thick and you are running round kissing butt of all those who disagree with me as your an emo owned bitch.
Yes, i guess there's some 'hard wiring' that will always show itself. But these studies can be taken with a pinch of salt i guess, the numbers are so low, and presumably many of them grow up in the same culture.
We recently did some work on 'Growth Mind Set' an the idea of limited innate ability was at the core of the ideas. Along a similar idea as the '10,000 hours' from books like Bounce. Basically the idea is that we can succeed in any area with enought quality practise and coaching/training. Obviously this is tempered by physical constraints to some degree, for example someone short is going to be up against it when trying to become an elite basketball player. I haven't found time to look into the references presented but it was certainly food for thought.
After a quick google, i'd have to agree, i've seen this with my own experiences. It's more important to teach how to learn, critical thinking seems to be on the wane in the our social media world.
I still think there will be an innate predisposition towards various characteristics, as much of a hippy as i am, i don't think we're all born equal.
Don't the buddhists select the Dalai lama from a young age, based on things like inquisitiveness (although they would say the same 'spirit' i guess)? Then load him with the right teaching and environment to make sure they get a decent leader.
As for the ethics, it does tread into the area of eugenics, which is never going to be pretty.
No two snowflakes are identical. I've always found that extraordinary.