From: Rhys 17/02/99 16:23:13 Subject: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1393 In the discussion below (Genetic Selection) the issue of nature vs nurture came up. Personally, I feel that nature plays a bigger hand in shaping us than does nurture.. and I put an estimate at about 70% nature, 30% nurture (which Chris wasn't happy about at all :o) Anyway, I'd like to conduct a little survey. Voice your opinion! Are we shaped by our genes or our environments? Put in a brief reason for your answer too. I'll compile the results and write a little essay about it. Thanks folks. From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) 17/02/99 16:29:55 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1394 Most individuals are made of 70% nature and 30% nurture. That's what I reckon anyway. I suspect what Chris was getting at was not the actual numbers, but on what do you base this belief that a human being is quantifiable in this way. The danger of assigning numbers (either arbitrarily or even systematically) to vague concepts like "our makeup", is that it assumes that there exists a single, meaningful, physical quantity that defines (and therefore limits) that quantity. For example there is the widely held (and demonstrably wrong) belief that since you can determine someone's IQ with a simple and straightforward test, the number assigned to them is a real and meaningful physical quantity of something inside their brain called "intelligence". Leaving aside questions about the fairly dubious notion of how "objective" and such tests might be, exactly what does it mean to have a single thing called intelligence anyway? Are we talking analytical intelligence? Are we talking mathematical intelligence? Are we talking spatial intelligence? Are we talking musical or artistic intelligence? Are we talking literary intelligence? Okay, since we can't define a single intelligence, let's have a few numbers for each different way a person can be intelligent, so instead of one "intelligence quotient" we have an "intelligence vector" (not unlike the results of the psychometric personality tests you might find in "womens" magazines). How then do we define each quantity/category within this broadened idea of intelligence? For example let's consider "mathematical intelligence". Does this mean an ability to do simple arithmetic, or the ability to do algebra? Does it mean an understanding of category theory, or differential geometry? Does it mean understanding of abstract pure mathematical concepts, or does it mean being able to build mental models of how abstract relationships relate to the physical world? Set theory, or calculus? Remember, the assumption is that just because someone has never seen or been taught any of these things, they still must have an intrinsic proficiency in them (whether it be high or low). Okay, let's acknowledge that there are different types of mathematical ability and understanding, and this is probably true of the other types of "intelligence" also. So, instead of a single IQ number, or a single IQ vector (a column of numbers), lets use an "intelligence matrix", where each row represents a intelligence class (mathematics, spatial, literary, etc.) and each element of that row represents a value of each intelligence sub-class (arithmetic, algebra, calculus, etc.). Now, let's assume a fairly modest number of 5 types of intelligence, and let's say 5 types of sub-intelligence withing each main type of intelligence. Let's also assume that in assigning a value to each intelligence sub-class, instead of say, a score out of 10, we assign a score out of 1, where 0 zero denotes "not intelligent" for that sub-class, and 1 denotes "intelligent" for that subclass. The total number of subclasses in a person's matrix is 5 x 5 = 25. Since there are only 2 possibilities (0 and 1) for each subclass, this means there are 225=33,554,432 unique categories/types of different individuals in this very rudimentary analysis of human beings (imagine if your entire meaningful being were defined by just 25 binary digits). You can try to simplify human ability even further by reducing the number of defined classes and subclasses, but at some point the whole notion just becomes silly. Interestingly, a significant fraction of some of the principle proponents of this sort of analysis, the giants who founded the whole modern idea of "psychometrics" at the end of the last century, retracted most their life's work after the eventual realisation (usually towards the end's of their careers/lives) that it was all just too simplistic. And this is just the logical groundwork you have to cover before you even get to the whole "nature vs. nurture (false) dichomotomy". Soupie twist, Ed G. From: Jeremy 17/02/99 16:35:13 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1396 My opinion, Nature overwhelmes Nurture. I think the separated twins studies go a long way to support this. Also, Some babies develop much faster, and some much slower than the norm - this can be seen at very early ages - long before nurture could possibly have a significant effect, and it can be shown statistically that these characteristics run in families. From: Gigboy 17/02/99 16:39:05 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1397 I suppose if your genes are tight enough you can be shaped by them (from the waist down anyway).... ;-) From: Jeremy 17/02/99 16:44:27 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1398 Dr. Ed G It seems very common that people misrepresent the meaning of an IQ test result. The IQ test result is a single measure, relative to a) The norm group at the time and b) the particular test. You can't compare individuals across culteral norms outside of the test group and neither can you compare those of different eras. The predictive power goes no further than a loose indicator of how well a child might do in school. That is all it does, all it can do, and happens to be the most reliable predictor that we posess. Cruse and flawed as it may be, it has some use. Otherwise I agree with everything you said. From: Martin Smith 17/02/99 16:56:07 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1402 The IQ test is often said to be an operational test. This basically means it tests how well you do on that test as compared to other people. It is then entirely up to other people to interperet that test - to decide how related it is to the task they actually want to test/determine suitability for etc etc. Most large corporations now do a series of IQ and personality tests on new employees for either mentally demanding or stressful jobs. There is more than a small amount of data showing there is a fair correlation in scores on these tests and how well the person performs their job. As regard nature V nuture - I am on the side of Stephen Dawkins. From: Rhys 17/02/99 17:19:59 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1404 Dr Ed.. you're a freak :)) (the best kind of freak though) I can justify putting a percentage into the answer simply because of the nature of the question. I give 2 options: nature or nurture, but I don't want to say to one "yes" and the other "no". Therefore I must feel that both factors are at work. If both factors are at work, then the amount each one influences the outcome can expressed as a percentage, for example if I worded it thusly: "In my opinion there are two main factors involved in developing the personality of an individual: the environment within which the individual resides, and the individual's biological makeup. If asked which of these two factors played the bigger part in developing the personality, I would suggest that the biological makeup of an individual has the greater influence, but that the individual's environment also plays a significant role." The percentage serves as an abstract reference to just how much more influence I feel that nature has over nurture, not as an exact measurable equation. Thanks for your post Dr Ed.. you've really got me thinking now. From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) 17/02/99 17:20:24 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1405 Okay, I didn't really address the issue at hand in my last post so I'll briefly limit my discussion to "Nature vs Nurture". Consider twins separated at birth. Put one in a loving, well-off family who have a balanced diet, and who value education as well as intellectual freedom and experimentation (they ensure the child has a good education by taking an active part in it (be it state or private), without forcing the child's development). Then put the other in a cupboard, don't talk to the child or let it interact with any other human being, and provide ONLY food, shelter and warmth. When the two reach the age of 20 I guarantee the child from the loving family will do 100% better, at any and every means of assessment, than the child who was put in a cupboard for 20 years (who not only will not have the power of language, but will not understand any form of communication whatsoever!). Obviously then, its a "lay down Misere"... the score being Nature 0, Nurture 100. Okay, now what if I took the same twins, but by some to be developed gene therapy, gave one an extra 21st chromosome resulting in Downe's Syndrome. Put them both in the same loving family I described in the first experiment? Same environment, and the genetic makeup of both is almost identical! But obviously the extra chromosome will make ALL THE DIFFERENCE on all of the same forms of assessment from the first experiment... and the result will be almost the exact opposite, nature WIN, nurture LOSE (I haven't put in quantities since I'm not familiar enough with the absolute degree of intellectual impairment caused by Downe's Syndrome - which itself varies massively from individual to individual). How can we get exactly opposite results from these two experiments? Because, as plain as the nose on my face, it generally makes no meaningful sense to even pose the question of "how much nature, how much nurture?" If we were wishing to have any useful insights we're simply asking the wrong question! Soupie twist, Ed G. From: Rhys 17/02/99 17:42:59 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1406 You're quite correct in both examples Dr Ed... SO: no-one could deny that only through nurture can nature develop fully. BUT: If the kid in the cupboard is naturally a happy person, while the kid who has the perfect family is naturally prone to manic depression, then cupboard kid would be happy, the other would not. Nature wins that round. As to saying it is a meaningless question: Understanding ourselves is the noblest pursuit of both science and philosophy. If we can show one way another which is the greatest influence, we begin to have the abilty to control. For example: If I am naturally pre-disposed to being depressive, we can look for ways to curb this nature (through surgery, or drugs, or genetic engineering.. whatever) If on the other hand it was my environment which makes me depressive, then I can take steps to change that.. by changing my situation. Personally I think the nature vs nurture debate is the most pertinent one in modern psychology. From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) 17/02/99 18:13:57 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1408 I think the separated twins studies go a long way to support this. Warning, Will Robinson, Warning, Warning!!! Most of the twin studies to which you refer are either confirmed frauds, or at best kinda dubious. Furthermore, you've got to take what the media tells you with many grains of salt, as they're more than prepared to exercise selective reporting in order to make a good story - and complexity and ambiguity don't make good copy! For example they'll report that a study found a correlation between the IQ's of adopted children and the IQ's of their natural parents, but they won't point out that "correlation" does not imply a "one-to-one relation". In particular, they be less inclined to mention the finding in the same study that the IQ's of adopted children, on average, significantly exceed those of their natural parents. Scientific reductionism will only take you so far and the sooner the psychological fraternity throws of the outdated conceptual shackles of Plato's "theory of types", the sooner we'll be able to confront society's challeneges (IMHO, of course). If we're taking sides, then I think I must side with Richard Lewontin, MIT professor and author of "The doctrine of DNA: biology as ideology.", a book that provides no tidy simple answers, and so is largely ignored in the popular press. ("The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen J. Gould is another eye-opening read) Soupie twist, Ed G. From: Robbie Gates 18/02/99 8:59:54 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1430 Regarding Dr. Ed's warning about seperated twin studies: It should also be noted that there are respected researchers in the fields of cognitive science and psychology who do believe some twin studies have content worth studying. Professionally, I don't know enough about how the studies are done (and haven't looked at the orignal papers), so i'll defer to the opinion of experts in the field and my belief that peer review, while not perfect, does give a (signifigantly better than nothing) way of distinguishing pure fraud from suprising results. It's dangerous to reject an entire field of study on the strength of some fraudulence attributed to it. Can you supply us with references to your evidence that most studies to which the poster referred are frauds ? I'm not for a moment claiming i believe all twin studies, or even any of them, or the reverse for that matter - just that i don't think we have enough evidence in this forum to decide whether or not they are carried out correctly, as discarding them out of hand is unwise, IMHO. One should also be careful about reasoning like "Study X must be wrong, because that would mean nature is like Y, and Y is immoral". Nature is neither moral no immoral, it just is. Bummer if the world doesn't turn out to be fair, or nice, or whatever. We don't get to pick that. The crucial point (which Ian alluded to in discussing memetics) is that we can choose* what to do, and we should choose what we believe is right, even if nature would have us do wrong. The stronger the natural** impetus to do what we believe is wrong, the stronger we must make our nurtural influence to do what we believe is right. - robbie * - i'm blurring the free will vs. determinism subtleties here ** - natural/nurtural used in the nature vs. nurture sense p.s. Dawkins argues this point better than i ever could in the last chapter of The Selfish Gene. From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) 18/02/99 12:43:22 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1517 Robbie, I take your point. But the thing I'm worried about is the widespread assumption that "nature" plays a "bigger role" than "nurture" (I've put all these concepts in quotes since they are in most arguments nebulous and ill-defined). In separated twin studies researchers are looking to show a link between innate potentials and exhibited traits or performance. No one who goes to such lengths to do research (there are VERY VERY few separated identical twins in the world) wants to get a negative result. All scientists dislike getting negative results. I don't like getting negative results. However, were talking here not about obscure or limited experiments on, say, the mating habits of dung bettles, but THE VERY NATURE OF WHAT IT IS TO BE HUMAN. And so we must be MUCH MORE CAREFUL and apply much more scrutiny and skepticism, because there's much more danger of clouding our judgement and losing any semblance of objectivity, and because the potential human cost if we get it wrong is so great. Of the four separated twin studies that I am aware, one was a complete fraud (this was the one done by Sir Cyril Burt), two were carried out on twins who were not really separated but brought up by different parts of an extended family IN THE SAME VILLAGE, and the fourth was more concerned with dubious connections between similar sounding pet names. Contrary to popular belief there is as yet no compelling evidence to state the case EITHER WAY!!! Much as we might want our abilities to be predertermined by our birth (which allows arguably sucessful people like myself to feel smug and superior to "the common plods", and people who are yet to experience "success" [however you want to define it] to no bother fighting for a better lot in life as its simply predetermined by their birth). I'm not saying we shouldn't ask the questions or do the research! I'm stressing that our conclusions should be rigourously and completely based on the evidence ALONE, and not on preconcieved notions of innate biological determinism. I guess the point I'm making is that is so easy to simply put a number on Nature vs Nurture, without even seeing the two effects separately. Everyone has seen the variation in different people. How many people have seen that variation in their genes??? How many people appreciate the significance of "developmental noise" in the womb? How many people have seen the variation in life experiences of different people? If you can't quantify a good environment over a bad environment, how can you compare it to "good nature" over "bad nature". We simply don't have the evidence on which to base such a decision. Not by a LONG WAY!!! And I think it's dangerous that, in the absence of any data, people are still prepared to make unfounded statements on the issue. My opinion is that we don't have the data, so WE CAN'T MAKE THE CALL! Soupie twist, Ed G. From: Rhys 18/02/99 13:45:06 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1544 Dr Ed said : "No one who goes to such lengths to do research (there are VERY VERY few separated identical twins in the world) wants to get a negative result. All scientists dislike getting negative results. I don't like getting negative results." By negative results you mean the failure to ratify the hypotheses which the researcher has put forward? Surely success to a research would be in either proving or disproving the hypotheses (in this case that twins seperated at birth will still exhibit similar personality traits despite vastly different environments)and not in the accuracy of the researcher's predictions. In the studies done on the subject, with such a small amount of subjects available as you said, it would not be possible to gain any real insight into anything other than the cases themselves. Even if the twins did indeed share very similar personalites, it would prove not at all at all in the larger scheme of things. So the failure of this kind of research is the inability to gain any kind of an answer to the wider problem, not just the 'wrong' answer. Okay, you're begining to sway me, I'll admit. You're dead right in saying that it isn't possible to know one way or another with looking at each case individually and then disecting a googleplex of different contributing factors -- from the womb to the world. And of course we don't have the tools available to make this kind of research (on that scale at least) plausible. So, given the tools we do have, what kind of research would you suggest could be done -- outside of the flawed twins theory -- to obtain some kind of result on the question? Even if the resulting answers were vague and merely probable and not definate, it would be a start. From: Chris (Avatar) 18/02/99 13:59:50 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1546 A much bigger experiment?? Suppose I suggest that a particular type of society favours nurtured development. Lets say this type of society requires for its success that people believe that any person can overcome any birth-lot and through the exercise of post natal force (eg will, environment, work, luck, etc) become a product of nurture regardless of their nature. One could see how the mechanics of a society might rest on the maintenance of such a belief. Now suppose I suggest that an alternative societal archetype requires that its members believe that they are all born to fulfill certain roles, and that they should fulfill those roles as a matter of course, a matter of destiny. The people should place less value in the notion of nurture for personal gain and be content with their nature. One could see how such a society might work too. Now suppose I call the first society "capitalism" and the second "communism". Does history tell us anything? Food for thought… Chris From: spOOk 18/02/99 14:23:47 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1550 Many parents will testify that each of their own children seems to be born with certain personality/curiosity level etc and will swear blind that they are treated fairly and thus brought up with very similar "nurture". People view this, I feel, rightly or otherwise as genetic predisposition. I don't think that the nature/nurture debate can be dismissed out of hand as Dr Ed seems to desire but I do agree that the twin studies are statistically insignificant with a view to resolving or even defining the dispute. I can also see that you can contrive scenarios that will wildly influence conclusions in the way that a child shut in a cupboard is deprived of a normal future or a wacky gene can similarly cripple a life thus overriding nurture. The debate, to me, is valid and useful but the problem is probably something that is so loosely defined that it is hard to attach a scientific method. Surely nature AND nurture have significant effects but we should not assume - as it was first posed in this forum, that a+b=c and c is a constant! What's wrong with the idea that one feeds on the other ??? Huh? It's true. If a good natured kid is good natured at school because of genetics, and tries hard, this gets noticed in the classroom and the result is that his/her environment is positively modified as a result. It has also been shown that some very disruptive kids that are doing poorly in class surprise teachers and parents when they are given an IQ battery of tests. It seems in this case nature is being negatively influenced by their genetically superior cognitive abilities which resulted (specifically, not generally) in boredom and disruption in class. Unnoticed, this has profound effects on the long term nurturing of such a child. There is no simple answer really but the question does need to be debated. From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) 18/02/99 14:52:19 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1557 Surely success to a research would be in either proving or disproving the hypotheses (in this case that twins seperated at birth will still exhibit similar personality traits despite vastly different environments) and not in the accuracy of the researcher's predictions. That's the ideal, but unfortunately it's often not the reality. Firstly, as I and others have pointed out, scientists are human, and the desire to be right will always cloud the analysis (and even the collection) of data to varying degrees - but that is exactly why all scientific research is held up to scrutiny in peer-reviewed scientific journals. However, if the majority of the scientific community happens to have the same preconceptions, then it can be many many years before unjustified conclusions and bad research is uncovered. Exactly this happened earlier this century as the result of the widespread belief (but by no means all) of the scientific community in eugenics - a philosophy which resulted in things like "the white Australia policy" (and similar West-Eurocentric policies of the U.S.), apartheid, the holocaust, etc., etc. (although I'm not suggesting eugenics was the only cause, just that it contributed). Secondly, it is unfortunate fact that only about 5% of the scientific literature consists of negative results (this was in an article in New Scientist in early 1997 as I recall). This means that (i) the broader scientific community is not being told about research "dead-ends", and (ii) in order for researchers to maintain their publication records ("publish or perish") they have to find some way of extracting some "positive" conclusions no matter how meagre or tentative from their work. The danger then is that those who are less well trained in the discipline make more of the conclusions than is actually warranted. This by no means suggests that science is not valuable, worthwhile, useful or valid, it simply means we must be constantly vigilant for things that may reduce its objectivity. Finally, I'm delighted to have prompted anyone to have re-considered their position, no matter what that position might have been (one of the principle rewards I get for being involved in this forum is the challenge to be wrong and to have to re-think my own understanding of things). The constant reassessment of knowledge, I think, is one of the highest ideals of scientific pursuit. Soupie twist, Ed G. From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) 18/02/99 15:16:21 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1560 There is no simple answer really but the question does need to be debated. I absolutely agree that "nature" plays a part in the variation of "potential" in different individuals. What I'm worried about is the danger of placing too much emphasis on "nature", WITHOUT THE THE ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION OF EVIDENCE. The obvious conclusion is that we need to do MORE research and argue the topic MORE. Absolutely. But let's not kid ourselves about the experimental difficulty in separating innate response from learnt responses, nor about the fact that we as human beings have an intimately vested interest in the conclusions. How do we do that? I don't know. I've already suggested an experiment that I know will suggest "nurture" is the overwhelming contributor (separating twins and putting one in a cupboard for 20 years). However, I readily admit that the interaction of the two influences is more subtle than that... Indeed, that's my point! Soupie twist, Ed G. From: Rhys 18/02/99 15:32:35 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1568 Dr Ed: In regards to your proposed 20 year long experiment (the boy in the cupboard:) it would seem to be biased in the fact that the kid in the cupboard does not have the opportunity of allowing nature to shape him. The way I think of it is like this: My core personality was given to me by nature, by my genetic makeup. The best analogy i can think of is that my natural personality is like a small metal ball, utterly unchangable. The nurture I receive through life is like a paper mache covering which coats the ball with layers and layers of information, or tools which my core personality utilizes to express itself. For example, I love music and I believe this a natural trait. But the type of music I enjoy comes from what i've learnt, from the associations i make between happiness and a particular form of music. (I love jazz immensely, and I put this down to an experience I had at a jazz festival as a small child.) So both factors are at work. The boy in the cupboard could well have an inate love for music, but until he's heard it, he would be unaware of that trait. From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) 18/02/99 16:27:26 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1582 In regards to your proposed 20 year long experiment (the boy in the cupboard:) it would seem to be biased in the fact that the kid in the cupboard does not have the opportunity of allowing nature to shape him. That's the difficulty in assessing any relative contribution... there's is no such thing as a "null nuture" condition from which to measure this. Now, if you do statistics on just the I.Q. of adopted children (and you exclude the children that have been institutionalised) you find two things. First, there is a correlation between the I.Q.'s of children and their natural parents (so, as I said before if parent A has a higher IQ than parent B, then on average child A will have a higher I.Q. than child B). Obviously an innate correlation. Secondly, however, the average I.Q. of adopted children is about 20 points higher than the average I.Q. of their natural parents, and almost the same as the I.Q. of their adoptive parents. Obviously an environmental correlation. Both are important. The problem with assigning a number to the relative value of "nurture" is that it implies that you can only affect individual life outcomes by that relative amount. Obviously though, in the "twin in a cupboard" example, the degree to which someone's life can change due to environment is profound. I think I would prefer a plasticine analogy than your solid ball analogy. "Nurture" is not something separate from, or on top of, "Nature". It is something that interacts with and affects it. Furthermore, our "Nature" is not entirely coded in our genes. The "starting point" is drastically affected by the random chemical interactions during development in the womb. For example, a mother can affect the innate potential of an individual simply by smoking during pregnancy. It is known that psychological effects can alter the course of physiological illness. Our mental makeup (arguably largely influenced by social environment) thus has an influence on our physiological makeup (arguably largely a function of "Nature"), and obviouslyvice versa. "Nature" and "Nurture" affect each other. Perhaps therefore, one might think of "Nature" are plasticine, which is then molded by "Nuture" into a whole human being. Now the plasticine can be hard, or soft, or heavy or light, or wet or dry, or blue, green or red, and so it has some influence over the potential shapes in which is may be molded. Without the plasticine there is nothing to mold, and without molding the plasticine is a formless blob. Soupie twist, Ed G. From: Robbie Gates 18/02/99 18:23:12 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1611 This is a reply to Dr. Ed's post with ID 1517: Basically, I agree with most of what Ed says, and think its pretty well put. But one point ... I agree more exploration is needed, and that this area is fascinating and bears heavily on what it means to be human. However, just as we shouldn't let preconceived notions of biological determinism cloud our judgement, we should let ideals about the primacy of human perseverance cloud our judgement either. After reading your post, I'm sure you agree. I guess I jump up and down about such things because I'm on the unfashionable side of the fence :-) - robbie p.s. unfortunately, to do hardcore experiments in this area (e.g. clone a few thousand copies of someone and distributive to statistically weighted random households) is an ethical mine field. Personally the execution of thiis sort of experiment would bother me intensely, to the extent i'd argue against it, even if i'm very curious about the outcome. p.p.s . now that i'm thinking, it's interesting to reflect on the fact that the very questions we tread lightly around (due to ethical considerations covered well in the second paragraph of Ed's post) are precisely the ones its hard to do experiments on. From: Robbie Gates 18/02/99 18:29:42 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1613 In response to the discussion about the nature of scientific research: Academic publishing exists subject to two major forces. It must be innovative - suprising results from well constructed experiements are "good copy" in a scientific sense. It must be conservative, to avoid publishing errors, whether they be the result of fraud or an honest mistake. Unfortunately, these tug in pretty much opposite directions. Sometimes the journals are too conservative (and communal preconceptions slow progress). Sometimes they're too innovative (and wrong stuff gets published). - robbie p.s. I heartily support Dr. Ed's lamentations on (the lack of) publishing negative results. From: Robbie Gates 18/02/99 18:33:04 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1614 Re Chris's communism vs. capitalism argument, and without really wanting to get into politics, I'd just like to observe that, even accepting the parallels drawn by Chris (which imho simplify the actual situation), that not every person with a fantastic idea and drive to be the best they can ends up succesful in a capitalist society. l8r, - robbie From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) 18/02/99 19:06:26 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1617 p.s. unfortunately, to do hardcore experiments in this area (e.g. clone a few thousand copies of someone and distributive to statistically weighted random households) is an ethical mine field. Personally the execution of thiis sort of experiment would bother me intensely, to the extent i'd argue against it, even if i'm very curious about the outcome. Well, if they ever allow parents to clone children who've died as adolescents or teenagers (one of the suggested uses for cloning) I would be very interested to see the outcome. Soupie twist, Ed G. p.s. maybe we should take this up again at the pub :-) From: Martin Smith 19/02/99 2:33:44 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1641 Re the scientific publishing debate Dr Ed G said "Secondly, it is unfortunate fact that only about 5% of the scientific literature consists of negative results" All too true -e.g. try and get your PhD by writting a paper that says - my theory is wrong and here are the really really good reasons why. You are more likely to get your degree by saying - my theory is O.K and here is lots of pretty graphs to distract you from the truth. Also there doesn't seem to be enough verification of experiments - especially in area like Psychology where it is almost impossible to get a paper published unless it is on something 'new and exciting'. From: Cass 21/02/99 21:56:12 Subject: re: Nature vs Nurture post id: 1782 "... twins seperated at birth will still exhibit similar personality traits despite vastly different environments..." I would contest the assertion that twins, even identical twins, need have the same personality even if they're raised in the same family. (And I won't go into whether or not that is a nature or nurture thing.) It seems from what I have read here that scientists who seperate twins at birth are working on the assumption that twins are clones and have the same disposition towards a personality. This is totally WRONG! Hope this helps with the Soupie Twist, ;-) Cass This forum is un-moderated. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual poster and not the ABC. The ABC reserves the right to remove offensive or inappropriate messages.